PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.
	To be considered on Tuesday 13 May.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ukraine

Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the effect of EU tariffs on Ukraine.

Denis MacShane: Tariffs on Ukrainian exports to the European Union benefit from most favoured nation treatment. That means that Ukraine is treated as though it were already a member of the World Trade Organisation.

Richard Bacon: I thank the Minister for his reply. There are serious concerns about possible arms exports from Ukraine to Iraq, allegations of money laundering and the murder of prominent journalists. If Ukraine is to be led along a path towards internationally accepted norms, does he agree that nothing should be done to make it more difficult for it to trade with its neighbours following the accession of the Baltic states to the European Union?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I raised those points in a recent meeting with State Secretary Chalyi of Kiev, who is responsible for European affairs. Enlargement will be a big opportunity for Ukraine, giving it access to an expanded single market, and, overall, Ukraine's trade with its new EU neighbours should increase as enlargement generates greater wealth in those countries. We have what is called an active new neighbours policy, working constructively with the Kiev Government to try to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union.

Helen Clark: I was very interested in that reply. The Minister in turn may be interested to hear that only last week I returned from a trip to Ukraine organised by Peterborough city council—my Peterborough constituency is twinned with the city of Vinnitsa. Members of our delegation were left in no doubt that Ukraine is extremely eager to become a member of the European Union. Will the Minister tell us how the UK Government may assist with that, especially in relation to developing trade links?

Denis MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend and, indeed, the city of Peterborough on those links. It is important that we look beyond the current enlargement of 10 new EU member states to the new neighbours who were all present, including President Kuchma of Ukraine, in Athens for the European conference—an idea initiated by Her Majesty's Government. We will work constructively with the Ukrainian Government to try to bring them closer to their ultimate ambition of membership of the European Union.

John Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, you will remember the welcome visit that you kindly hosted only last week of the President of the Rada and other distinguished parliamentary colleagues. Will Her Majesty's Government follow up that excellent initiative with an intensification of the already good relations with Ukraine, an expression of thanks for Ukraine's participation in the coalition of the willing in the recent Iraq crisis—a courageous initiative on its part—and a determination to help Ukrainian agriculture, which has always been the backbone of Ukraine's economy?

Denis MacShane: We noted Ukraine's deployment of a nuclear, biological and chemical clean-up battalion to Kuwait earlier this month. The hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to the welcome commitment of the Ukrainian Government to the conflict to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We are now in discussion with Ukraine about how it might further assist the coalition. The question of Ukrainian agriculture, like the broad problem of agriculture in the whole of Europe, must be set in the context of the need to reform the common agricultural policy.

Iraq

Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the role of Iraqi opposition leaders in the Iraq crisis.

Mike O'Brien: I attended the conference of Iraqis in Baghdad last week. That gave me an opportunity to meet internal leaders as well as members of the diaspora opposition. A wide range of local leaders, academics, clerics and secularists were represented. We aim to create a broad-based Iraqi interim administration in a few weeks' time that can lead Iraq towards democracy. It should reflect the Shi'a, Sunni, Chaldean, Kurdish and Turkoman people but also women as well as men.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that the Minister shares my delight at seeing Iraqi opposition leaders elected to Mosul city council last weekend, but does he agree that the Iraq crisis will not be over until the weapons of mass destruction, about which the war was fought, are found and secured? Does he further agree that, should the intelligence that the Government received before the war be shown to be wanting in that respect, a fundamental review of our intelligence service will be required?

Mike O'Brien: The coalition forces are actively pursuing sites, documentation and individuals connected with Iraq's WMD programmes. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have deployed specialist personnel and will send more in the near future. This investigation will not be a quick process. Saddam had ample opportunity to conceal his WMD programmes and he had considerable experience in concealment, dating back to the early 1990s. The process itself will be painstaking in detail. We want to establish the truth beyond any doubt. We cannot expect the coalition to conduct a proper forensic examination merely in a matter of weeks, so I ask hon. Members to bear with us while we conduct the investigation in what is still in some areas quite a dangerous environment.

Ann Clwyd: Almost every week, I am telephoned by someone in Iraq who is concerned about the preservation of evidence. It is a matter that I have raised here time after time, but I still do not know what our Government are doing on this point. The point that I want to make now is that the mass graves are being uncovered not by forensic scientists or people who can assess the evidence that they are uncovering, but by people who are looking for their sons, daughters and relatives, which one can quite understand. But at the same time, we as the coalition, have a responsibility to preserve that evidence so that it can be used in the trials that will undoubtedly take place.

Mike O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a responsibility to seek to preserve evidence, but in some circumstances it is still a dangerous environment and, within that context, we need to seek to preserve not only some of the sites but some of the documentation, some of which has obviously been disturbed—in some cases deliberately removed and in others ransacked by looters. There is therefore quite a large task to be undertaken, but as soon as we can establish effective security, I agree that our objective needs to be to seek to protect the evidence on which those who have committed such appalling atrocities under Saddam Hussein can be brought to justice.

Menzies Campbell: Is there any reason other than security why the UN inspectors should not return to Iraq to fulfil the mandates given to them by the Security Council under resolutions 1284 and 1441? When does the Minister think that it will be safe for the inspectors to return to Iraq, and is there not now an overwhelming urgency about their return in view of the International Atomic Energy Agency's request today for access to sensitive sites?

Mike O'Brien: Hans Blix himself has said that he believes that the circumstances are dangerous, and it would have been unsuitable to date for the inspectors to seek to return to Iraq and complete their task. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that it is the Government's hope that inspectors will be able to return to Iraq in due course and that they will be able to give independent oversight of the process of the finding of WMD. However, their objectives will be different. The objective will no longer be detection, more a validation of findings, and our objective is to see if we can ensure that there is some independent oversight of those findings.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what the other restrictions are. Obviously, we will need to ensure that the United Nations Security Council is satisfied that that is the way to proceed, and we hope that we shall be able to obtain not only further resolutions from the Security Council, but agreement on how inspection and a range of other matters will proceed in relation to Iraq.

Glenda Jackson: In light of my hon. Friend's previous reply, is he saying that validation of weapons of mass destruction, should they be discovered, will be the preserve of UN weapons inspectors, and will they also be responsible for the oversight of the destruction of any such weapons should they be found?

Mike O'Brien: Certainly, it is our view that there should be some independent validation. We hope that the UN Security Council will decide that it can undertake that task through the inspectors, but, to some extent, we have to discuss not only with the United States but with the UN Security Council and with others how we can take this forward. We hope that the inspectors will be able to have a role, but there are still some steps to be taken to ensure that they do.

Boris Johnson: The vast majority of the people whom I met last week in Baghdad were deeply grateful to the coalition forces for liberating them from the regime of Saddam Hussein. I am afraid that a great many of them were also alarmed about the possibility of being shot, because there has been a huge increase in shootings. What steps does the coalition envisage taking to restore policing to Baghdad, as I believe is our obligation under the terms of the Geneva convention?

Mike O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is certainly our obligation to ensure that we establish law and order in Iraq, and we intend to do that. We have already begun the process in Basra, which we took before Baghdad was taken. We already have about 600 Iraqi police officers on the streets to patrol together with our British forces, so steps have been taken there. The Americans took Baghdad later and have begun to get a number of police officers to return to duty. They have begun making some patrols together with Iraqi police officers, so law and order is starting to come under some element of control. However, the situation is much more difficult in Baghdad in many ways. We still think that large numbers of foreign fighters remain in Baghdad and are taking potshots at people. Indeed, while the hon. Gentleman and I were in Iraq, we saw each other in Baghdad, and while I was doing an interview and he was watching, shots were fired in the background. There is still firing and it is still a dangerous place, but we are seeking to establish order.

Middle East

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on progress with the road map for peace between Israel and Palestine.

John MacDougall: What progress has been achieved with the road map for the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on progress on the middle east road map.

Jack Straw: The publication of the Quartet's road map on 30 April is a major opportunity for both sides to work with international support to achieve a just and lasting settlement to this terrible conflict. All in the international community have worked hard over recent months to reach this point. We expect both sides to respond positively and to start implementation without delay. We shall continue to do all we can to help the parties to reach a settlement.
	For the convenience of the House, I should like to announce here the appointment of our outgoing ambassador to Cairo, John Sawers, as the British Government special representative to Iraq. Mr. Sawers will work alongside Chris Segar, head of the newly opened British office in Baghdad, particularly in relation to the political process and our work in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will he outline to the House what role, if any, Yasser Arafat has to play in this process? Secondly, is he convinced that President Bush and Ariel Sharon are genuine in seeking some sort of settlement with the Palestinians?

Jack Straw: Yasser Arafat remains Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, but under reforms that we were happy to support, encourage and indeed facilitate in two sets of meetings in London earlier this year, there have been constitutional changes under which a Prime Minister has been chosen, his appointment endorsed by the representative Palestinian Legislative Council and a Cabinet appointed. Abu Mazen and his Cabinet will undertake most of the detailed work on the implementation of the road map, and we welcome that development.
	We believe that the Israeli Government are indeed committed to the process. As for President Bush, I am in no doubt personally of his profound commitment to implement the road map and to see implementation of resolutions 242 and 338, as well as resolution 1397, which for the first time laid down the commitment of the Security Council, with full United States backing, to a two-state solution—a secure state of Israel alongside a viable state of Palestine.

John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only basis for a lasting settlement in the middle east will involve a secure state of Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state? Does he agree that that requires the Quartet to deliver commitment, courage and determination to make that vision a reality; and, if so, will he encourage it to do so?

Jack Straw: Yes, I would. The process requires courage and determination on all sides—not only from the Palestinians and the Israelis, but from the Arab states, which have clear responsibilities to end their support and financing of terrorism and, in due course, fully to recognise the state of Israel.

Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend make clear the Government's position on Israel's continued activity and settlement in the occupied territories, and does he agree that it is illegal under international law and an absolute obstacle to peace?

Jack Straw: It is a matter of legal fact that the settlements are unlawful under international law. Under the road map, we look first to an end to further settlement activity, then, as part of the progress that is mapped out in that document, to a progressive withdrawal by Israel from those settlements.

Julian Lewis: Do our Government take the position that our US allies are right to continue to include Syria in their list of states that are sponsors of terrorism?

Jack Straw: Syria is one of the states in the region that supports rejectionist terrorist organisations operating in Israel and the occupied territories, and we look to Syria to recognise the new realities on the ground and to end such support.

Martin Smyth: We all welcome the road map. I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary's reference to the neighbouring states. Does he agree that they could act as a road block, causing detours, if they do not recognise Israel's right to exist in the area?

Jack Straw: Let me make it clear that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that some of the neighbouring states have played a profoundly constructive role in getting to this point. I would particularly mention—this is not an exclusive list—the work of Jordan, the work of Saudi Arabia and the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah, and the work of Egypt, especially that of President Mubarak and Omar Suleiman, the head of intelligence, in sponsoring and facilitating the process. The hon. Gentleman is of course right that every Arab and Islamic state has a responsibility to support the process, which will lead to what they say they want—namely, peace in the middle east.

Louise Ellman: Does the Secretary of State agree that the information that the British-born terrorists who last week committed the Tel Aviv nightclub outrage received support from Damascus reinforces the need for Syria to remove itself from supporting terrorism? What specific actions are the Government taking to ensure that that end is achieved in order to give the road map to peace a chance?

Jack Straw: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The President of Syria and his colleagues have recently had many conversations on the matter, including with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is the Foreign Office Minister responsible, and with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who visited Damascus last week and delivered, as did my hon. Friend, very firm messages to the Syrian Government about their need to take fully into account the changed circumstances in the region.

Michael Ancram: I welcome the appointment of John Sawers as the special representative in Iraq. I am sure that he will be a great asset in bringing the process to a sensible resolution.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must be wary not to vest in the road map an element of magic, and that it will ultimately depend on the political will of the Israeli Government and the Palestinians to march along it and successfully to negotiate the details within it? Does he agree that the key is reciprocity—the confidence on each side that the steps laid out are being matched on the other side? What mechanisms will ensure that the reciprocal steps that are made are publicised, thus helping to build and sustain that confidence? Is it not essential that the Quartet, whatever their previous views, are now seen to be completely even-handed in their approach?

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his agreement and acceptance regarding the importance of the appointment of John Sawers. I should explain that Mr. Sawers will come to work for me as the new political director of the Foreign Office in the summer, and that his leaving Cairo provides a useful opportunity to make use of his talents in the intervening period.
	The right hon. Gentleman is also correct that the road map is no magic solution. Its steps have been well set out in the past in a series of documents, including the Tenet and Mitchell reports. The difference now is that there appears to be an international consensus on those steps, especially full backing for the process from President Bush.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that the arrangement is reciprocal, but each side has a responsibility to take steps immediately and not wait for the other because unless there is good will and an initiative towards it, we will not get the final status settlement that we want in 2005. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for the Quartet to monitor progress, publicise that monitoring or its failure and act together.

Michael Ancram: From the experiences of other peace processes, is not it, sadly, odds on that extreme interests on both sides will try to undermine the progress in the road map through terrorist attacks in Israel and provocation against Palestinians in the occupied territories? What measures can the Quartet and neighbouring Arab states introduce to ensure that such incidents are prevented as far as possible and not allowed to destroy confidence, without which the initiative cannot succeed? In particular, what assurances has the Foreign Secretary been able to give his Israeli counterpart about potential terrorist attacks from this country?

Jack Straw: It is an appalling truth that the extremist rejectionist terrorist organisations will try to prevent any democratic progress towards peace by both sides by resorting to bombing, shootings and especially the facility of suicide terrorism. That was apparent in a suicide bombing that was by no means accidentally timed as the Quartet's road map was being published. It is a matter of great regret that the two suicide bombers were British citizens.
	Last week, I spoke to Foreign Minister Shalom to express the British Government's—and, I believe, the British people's—condolences on the death of the Israeli citizens. I also said that we would do everything that we could to ensure that the suicide bombers' backgrounds were fully investigated and that such incidents were prevented in future.

Ernie Ross: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend said, but may I remind him that, if the road map is to succeed, much responsibility will fall on the elected Government in Israel? They have the power to make changes in the area. If they do not allow Abu Mazen and his new Cabinet and Administration the room to exercise power, and simply demand that something happen but simultaneously frustrate it by continuing the occupations, road closures, targeted killing and house demolitions, it will be impossible for any new Administration to gain credence. It will also make it appear that the Palestinians do not want peace. Israel says that it is the only democracy in the area, so surely a greater responsibility falls on the elected Israeli Government to make a bigger gesture, even in the face of adversity.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. However, I believe that the responsibilities lie evenly on the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the states in the region. Israel is indeed a vibrant democracy; that is one of its great strengths. However, we must all acknowledge that the peace party has been undermined in Israel as a direct result of the suicide bombers who have operated so viciously in the months since the intifada was declared.

Sydney Chapman: Am I right that phase 1, which seeks to end terrorism, is designed to be accomplished by this month? More important, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that phase 2—the creation of an independent Palestine—depends on the achievement of phase 1?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. I think that he is right, but in any event I shall make that clear in due course. I read the whole of the road map over the weekend, but this just goes to show how other things can crowd it out. The answer is certainly very shortly.

Alan Duncan: By the end of May.

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who tells me that it will be by the end of May. The time scales for the initial steps to be taken are certainly very swift. What we need to see is an indication of good will from both sides.

Hong Kong

Ross Cranston: What representations he has made to the Hong Kong Government about article 23 of the Basic Law.

Bill Rammell: I have discussed article 23 with senior members of the special administrative region Government in Hong Kong and in London. In those discussions, and in the statement that I issued on 27 March about the draft article 23 legislation, I made clear our concerns about certain aspects of their proposals.

Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It might be too early for him to make an assessment of the impact, if any, that severe acute respiratory syndrome will have on the progress of the Bill, but may I put to him this crucial point? The institutions that have made Hong Kong so successful—freedom of speech, press freedom, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law—must not be compromised by the implementing of the legislation.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. I very much agree that those key ingredients that have made Hong Kong such a success story need to be preserved through the passage of this legislation. I certainly welcome the fact that the special administrative region Government have made several changes in the draft legislation, compared with their original proposals. I also welcome their assurance that the basic rights and freedoms in Hong Kong will not be eroded. The devil will be in the detail, however, and that is why we shall follow this issue very closely indeed.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister tell us which of the concerns to which he referred in his first answer has met with the least positive response from those with whom he has been talking?

Bill Rammell: There has been some movement on all the issues. There are a number of concerns, but the key remaining issue is that of the proscription of organisations in Hong Kong that are subordinate to organisations that are banned in mainland China. Part of the success of Hong Kong since the handover is the autonomy of the legal system, and the concern is that a move in this direction would blur the distinction between Hong Kong and the mainland. That is the key point that we are continuing to make.

Zimbabwe

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the implications for security in Africa of UK policy towards the regime in Zimbabwe.

Jack Straw: The United Kingdom wants the restoration of a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe. Poor governance in Zimbabwe has reduced foreign investment there, precipitated economic decline and exacerbated political instability. The crisis there has also damaged neighbouring economies. Zimbabwe's inability to pay neighbouring countries for power supplies, and the spread of foot and mouth disease, for example, clearly have major implications for the prosperity of southern Africa generally.

Henry Bellingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the economy of Zimbabwe is in a state of anarchy and that millions are starving? Is he aware that Opposition MPs have been imprisoned and tortured, and that the leader of the Opposition is on trumped-up charges of treason? Furthermore, the Mbeki mission has ended in farce, yet the United Kingdom Government are sanctioning a cricket tour that can only bolster the Mugabe regime. Surely the time has come for them to start to take Zimbabwe more seriously.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the state of the economy. Gross domestic product is reckoned to decline by 12 per cent. this year, and to have declined by a quarter over the last four years. The official rate of exchange of the Zimbabwean dollar, which was until recently valued at 50 to the US dollar, is now 800 to the US dollar. The unofficial, black market rate of exchange is 1,500 to the US dollar. That is an indication of the wreckage that President Mugabe has produced from that once extremely prosperous and potentially very prosperous country.
	So far as the cricket tour is concerned, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that we are of course as committed as he is, and feel as strongly as he does, about the need to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwe regime. However, I have always taken the view that, even if we had the power to stop sportspeople from Zimbabwe visiting, we would be punishing ordinary Zimbabweans rather than punishing the regime.

Julian Lewis: What about the chaps with black armbands?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman talks about chaps who wear black armbands. Henry Olonga—

Henry Bellingham: A great man.

Jack Straw: Henry Olonga is a great man. He told the Daily Mail just the other day:
	"It is right for the cricketers of my country to be here"
	in the United Kingdom.

Donald Anderson: There is perhaps a glimmer of hope that the leaders of the African union are beginning to realise the adverse effect of what is happening in Zimbabwe on the perception of Africa generally. How important does my right hon. Friend consider the current initiative by the Presidents of South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria? I refer to their visit to Zimbabwe, which I think was scheduled for yesterday.

Jack Straw: I have yet to receive a full report of the visit, but I have no doubt that those three Heads of Government, and indeed virtually all Heads of Government across the continent of Africa, are fully aware of the damage that the Mugabe regime has caused to Zimbabwe, to the South African region and to the reputation of Africa generally. The issue between us often relates to tactics and how best to put pressure on the Mugabe regime, but I think everyone can see that whatever "consent" the regime may once have had is rapidly dissolving before our eyes.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary share the regret felt by many that President Mugabe has been unwilling to step aside? Is not the cruel truth that the failures of Mugabe's Government are a blight on the whole of southern Africa, and inevitably affect the levels of support and investment that the developed world gives the region—which in turn undermines NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Is it not outrageous that some of the poorest people in Africa must pay for the excesses of the Mugabe Government?

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. James Morris, director of the World Food Programme—who briefed the United Nations Security Council on 7 April—described the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe as "almost beyond comprehension".
	We are determined that the Zimbabwe crisis should not undermine NEPAD, although it has certainly not made NEPAD's implementation any easier.

Michael Ancram: Yesterday's visit to Zimbabwe by the three African Presidents was a belated but nevertheless welcome initiative, although the outcome was predictably disappointing. Is not the key element of any solution, quite simply, the restoration of the democracy and rule of law destroyed by Mugabe, and is it not true that progress will not be made until Government-sponsored rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and starvation are ended?
	Is it not the case that this is no longer just a domestic problem, but a matter of regional security and a humanitarian crisis? Is there not a role for the United Nations Security Council to play in coming to grips with it? Will the Foreign Secretary, even at this late date, shake off his self-confessed post-colonial guilt, take the initiative of the Security Council, and stop passing by on the other side?

Jack Straw: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was doing quite well until he reached the last bit, which was rather predictable.

Andrew MacKinlay: Ask him what he would do! He has not told us what he would do.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend points out—from a sedentary position, but I think everyone could hear because he is a good Essex boy—that the right hon. Gentleman never says what he would do. He mentioned the Security Council. I would be the first to have the matter taken before the Security Council if I felt that there could be a successful outcome, but there is no evidence for that at present, which I greatly regret. If we tried and failed, Mugabe would clearly regard it as a victory for him.
	The circumstances are very different from those in Iraq. We are working to put the maximum pressure on Mugabe. Notwithstanding the predictions of Conservative Members, we managed to obtain sanctions supported by the Commonwealth and sanctions supported by the European Union, and to have those sanctions tightened. It is obvious that the pressure is working, and is destabilising the Mugabe regime.

Peter Pike: Is it not a tragic fact that what my right hon. Friend has said is an understatement of the current problem of decline in Zimbabwe? Following the recent visit by leaders of other African countries, is it not perhaps time to say to all those in ZANU-PF who recognise that Mugabe's time is up that if they want to save their country, they should tell him that now is the time for him to go if he wants to do likewise, and to stop the appalling decline that we have witnessed in the past few years?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Iraq

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the coalition's plans for elections in Iraq.

Mike O'Brien: At the conference of Iraqis in Baghdad last week, there was a call for a conference in four weeks' time to agree a broad-based independent Iraqi government. It is envisaged that such a government will then call a constitutional assembly; this will agree a constitution, to be put to a referendum. An electoral roll will need to be drawn up; then, we hope that elections will take place to select a representative Iraqi government. It is difficult to be precise about the timetable, as requested, but an estimate would be 18 to 24 months in all.

Vincent Cable: May I welcome the Minister's commitment to the free and fair elections that his answer seemed to imply? Can he explain the status of important political groups such as the Ba'ath party, the Communist party and the Islamic fundamentalists? Will they be allowed to compete freely and democratically in those elections, and if they won would they be allowed to win?

Mike O'Brien: Yes, we hope that there will be free and fair elections. Whether they are through proportional representation remains to be seen, but I would imagine that the Iraqis would have more sense. We hope that the Ba'ath party will not be able to involve itself in that election, and certainly not in the form that it took under Saddam Hussein. It is not envisaged, therefore, that it would be allowed to operate. However, other parties would have to form and to put themselves in the normal way before the electorate. So it is a decision for the Iraqi people themselves as to exactly how they want to develop their political culture and go about creating a new and representative Iraqi government. Any birth is a difficult process, and the birth of a new democracy is going to be difficult; but it can also be a wonderful process.

Jon Owen Jones: When Donald Rumsfeld says that America will not tolerate any outside influence in the affairs of Iraq, is the irony intentional, and by what authority does America—or, indeed, Britain—determine which countries should have any influence in the elections in Iraq?

Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend will know, under the Hague convention and the Geneva convention the coalition forces have a responsibility to ensure law and order and basic security in Iraq, and that is what we are seeking to establish in a difficult environment. Therefore, there is legitimacy in Donald Rumsfeld's saying that, and in warning others who may seek to disrupt law and order in Iraq not to do so. There are obviously one or two other regional players, and other organisations that are not governments themselves—Hamas, Hezbollah and various other groups—that might seek to play a role. We are simply flagging up that they should not seek to disrupt what we hope will be an orderly progress towards a democratic Iraq.

Alan Duncan: When it comes to elections in Iraq, what philosophical differences does the Minister think might divide potential political parties there? This is a crucial moment for shaping Iraq's permanent institutions of justice, taxation, human rights and local government, and, indeed, for the whole scope of government itself. In terms of structure, does the Minister think that the Swiss model might be a good one to emulate, and do the Government think that it would be good for Iraq's long-term economy—and, indeed, for the well-being of its citizens—for Iraqis to have a health service that is free in respect of all health needs at the point of delivery, including even foundation hospitals, or are we to conclude that when it comes to Iraq, this Government have a two-tier set of principles?

Mike O'Brien: That was laboured—very laboured—but the philosophical differences between Iraqi parties are for the Iraqis themselves to resolve. Whether a Swiss or any other model—even a proportional representation model—is established will be for the Iraqis to decide. The same applies to foundation hospitals. They would be wise to listen to the arguments, but, in the end, it is entirely for the Iraqis to decide.

South Africa

Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement concerning the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with South Africa.

Jack Straw: I know that the House will join me in mourning the death last night of Walter Sisulu, one of the founders of the African National Congress and of modern South Africa. We share with all the people of South Africa their grief at that loss.
	On the question itself, our relations with South Africa are good. I will visit South Africa shortly, for the UK-South Africa bilateral forum, when a wide range of bilateral and regional issues will be discussed. I pay tribute to President Mbeki for the role that he has played in promoting the New Partnership for Africa's Development and in the drive for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi.

Barbara Follett: Given the inconclusive meeting of the three presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi in Harare yesterday, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to use Britain's good relations with President Mbeki of South Africa to ensure that he continues to put pressure on the Mugabe regime and finds a swift solution to the appalling situation in Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: I look forward to discussions with my opposite numbers in South Africa and elsewhere about bilateral and regional issues. Zimbabwe will feature high on the list of regional issues. As I have already told the House, I am in no doubt about the South African Government's concern about Zimbabwe.

Nicholas Winterton: While I agree with the question asked by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), how does the Foreign Secretary feel that our bilateral relations with South Africa have been influenced by the tragedy in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the security of the whole of central southern Africa might well be influenced by the tremendous damage that events in Zimbabwe are doing to other countries in southern Africa? Does he believe that we, as a country with influence in southern Africa and South Africa itself, can do anything else to bring about a change of leadership in Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of the region. What has happened in Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe has plainly damaged the wider region as well as that country. However, I believe that our relationship with South Africa is too important to be defined by Zimbabwe and, as it were, by the gross inadequacies of President Mugabe. South Africa is by far the most important country in southern Africa and it has a leading role to play in the economic development of the whole of Africa. We have very good bilateral relations with the country and the subject forms an important part of my agenda for discussion at my forthcoming visit.
	We have set a clear agenda for putting pressure on the Mugabe regime, including sanctions and the opprobrium of the international community. We have to work with our partners in southern Africa to achieve an acceleration of that pressure, which is already working, as can be seen on the streets of towns and cities across Zimbabwe. From a depressing position late last year, the opposition parties are winning by-elections and the Mugabe regime is becoming highly destabilised. It is my belief—it may be optimistic—that if we maintain that pressure, sensible people inside the ZANU-PF regime will realise that, for their country's future as well as their own, they have to detach themselves from President Mugabe.

Andrew MacKinlay: During the Secretary of State's forthcoming visit to South Africa, will he raise with his opposite number the contents of the written statement by Baroness Amos a few weeks ago about the appalling situation whereby, in London and South Africa, the so-called Northbridge group—a bunch of mercenaries—is actively recruiting Brits and South Africans to destabilise the region, particularly the Ivory Coast? Is it not about time that this Government and the South African Government took legislative powers to control and regulate those bandits who are doing great harm throughout the continent?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are taking a number of actions in respect of this company but, as he knows, the Foreign Affairs Committee—of which he is a member—has made important recommendations to the Government on legislating in this area and we have already offered a positive response.

Richard Spring: The Foreign Secretary will recall the pivotal and direct role that the previous South African Government played in bringing to an end the illegal regime of Ian Smith. When he meets President Mbeki, will he remind him that, under the terms of NEPAD, African leaders have an obligation to speak out clearly and act against abuses of democracy by Governments in the region?

Jack Straw: I shall be happy to spell out to President Mbeki and other Ministers the nature of the Harare principles and the Southern African Development Community's parliamentary principles, and the importance of these being implemented right across southern Africa.

Rwanda

9. John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): If he will make a statement on the political situation in Rwanda.

Bill Rammell: Progress is being made on rebuilding Rwanda and the lives of the people, but there is still a long way to go. The political situation is encouraging, with a constitutional referendum scheduled for 26 May and presidential and parliamentary elections later this year. We stand ready to help Rwanda with its election process. The Foreign Secretary is meeting President Kagami in London later this week.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will agree that the post-genocide transition period as defined in the Arusha accords is coming to an end and that it is a critical time for Rwanda. My hon. Friend will be aware also of the recent crackdown on the political opposition parties in Rwanda, particularly the largest opposition group, the MDR. Does he share my concern that, in the run-up to a referendum and constitutional elections, there is no serious opposition to the ruling RPF? As the biggest bilateral donor to Rwanda, should not the UK play a critical part in ensuring that fair elections are held? Will he impress that upon President Kagami at the talks later this week?

Bill Rammell: I certainly agree that this is a critical time for Rwanda. With regard to the MDR, we will be urging the Rwandan Government to follow full due process and to demonstrate their commitment to an inclusive and democratic state. I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that there was no opposition; there are some 80 opposition parties in existence. Undoubtedly, we will be taking the opportunity this week to discuss with the Rwandan Government how they intend to manifest their commitment to establishing a democratic and inclusive state. I am sure that will be on the agenda for the talks with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Middle East

Peter Luff: What plans he has to meet the new Palestinian Prime Minister to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I regularly discuss the road map with our Arab colleagues. It was one of the subjects raised during our recent, separate visits to the region. I regularly brief Arab ambassadors in London on UK policy towards the middle east, including the peace process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, to visit London.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand that what seems to be lacking from his reply and that of the Foreign Secretary is a sense of urgency? The new conditions that pertain in the world post-Iraq, with the President of the United States fully supporting the new process, demand a new sense of urgency from the world. When he next meets representatives of Arab Governments or the Israeli Government, will he remember the word of Brutus in "Julius Caesar"?
	"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
	Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
	Omitted, all the voyage of their life
	Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
	On such a full sea are we now afloat,
	And we must take the current when it serves,
	Or lose our ventures."
	Does he agree that we are on such a full sea, that we must take that current, which is flowing strongly in the direction of peace, and that, if we fail, future generations of Palestinians and Israelis will never forgive us?

Mike O'Brien: Et tu, Brute. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been discussing this matter with the American President over a number of months, with more than a little success. The Government have shown throughout that we are aware of the urgency of creating an Israel that is free from terrorism, and a Palestinian state that is viable. In that way, there will be an end to the injustice that has been done to the Palestinian people. The Government are committed to supporting that peace process, and we are working with the Americans and others to ensure that there is full backing for the quartet's road map.

Richard Burden: May I add my welcome to the road map? I should also like to echo the comments made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that the obligations on the parties were immediate and simultaneous, and not sequential, as some members of the Israeli Government have suggested. However, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a related issue—the fact that a number of foreign nationals were shot recently as they attempted either to report what is going on over there, or to promote peace. What representations are being made to the Israeli Government, especially about the case of Tom Hurndall, who was recently shot, and is now in a coma? Yesterday, Israeli forces fired shots over a convoy carrying Mr. Hurndall, even though the convoy bore diplomatic flags and was accompanied by British embassy staff.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have serious concerns about the incident to which he refers. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador on Saturday and expressed our deep concerns about the matter. I also asked for a full report to be made after a proper inquiry into the incidents has been held. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also spoken to some of the families concerned. We will pursue these matters with the utmost vigour. They are very serious, and my hon. Friend need be in no doubt that the Government will treat them seriously, as consular matters. We will give as much support as we can to the families concerned, and we will make sure also that the Israeli Government are in no doubt about a problem that seems to occur all too often—the lack of discipline among Israeli defence force soldiers. That issue of discipline needs to be dealt with by the Israeli Government.

Patrick Cormack: Even if the Minister cannot aspire to a Shakespearean vocabulary, will he at least use a jargon-free vocabulary? Can we discard "road maps" and "quartets" and talk about the peace process instead, and then get on with the job?

Mike O'Brien: Our aim is to get on with the job.

Nigeria

Julia Drown: What steps the Government are taking to press the Nigerian Government to prevent the stoning to death of Amina Lawal for adultery.

Bill Rammell: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done to raise this appalling case. The Government and our EU partners regularly raise our concerns about this case with the appropriate authorities in Nigeria. Indeed, my noble Friend the Minister for Africa, Baroness Amos, expressed to President Obasanjo our concern about the harsh sentences imposed under the sharia penal codes, and emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK.

Julia Drown: The Nigerian state court will hear Amina's case on 3 June. Both Muslims and non-Muslims in my constituency have told me how appalled they are at Nigeria's interpretation of sharia law, which is in flagrant violation of the UN torture convention. They are also concerned about the other Nigerian women facing death by stoning who have not received the same international publicity and who do not have legal representation. Are the Government making equal efforts to raise those cases too? Human rights need to be protected, wherever people are.

Bill Rammell: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. We take every opportunity to raise all cases in which this extreme interpretation of sharia law is used, and we will continue to do so. I reassure my hon. Friend that, through our high commission, we also maintain close contact with the national human rights commission in Nigeria, and the non-governmental organisations. In that way, we will get advance warning in cases such as this, and that will allow us to do everything in our power to apply the maximum pressure.

John Bercow: The integrity and good intentions of the Minister are not in dispute, but what indication has he had that the representations that he and his noble Friend Baroness Amos have made about the proposed barbaric penalty will, in practice, be heeded?

Bill Rammell: I take comfort from the fact that the Nigerian Attorney-General has made clear his view that the cases will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional in the federal court. We should none the less continue to apply pressure on an issue that is of serious concern across the House.

North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Helen Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
	the financial problems at North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust and the action which needs to be taken to resolve them.
	It was recently revealed that North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust ended the last financial year with a deficit of £5.8 million. The director of finance has left—to take up another post, I understand—and the chief executive has tendered his resignation. The trust is therefore left to face its problems without two key officers. Rumours are rife in my constituency about what may happen at Warrington hospital, and the staff are seriously concerned.
	We urgently need answers from our strategic health authority about how the deficit arose and what action it intends to take to deal with it. Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to obtain answers from the authority. I have written to it, and I know that hon. Friends have written too. The chief executive has arranged two meetings with me, but has cancelled them. She does not return phone calls. It is easier to get an audience with the Pope than with the chief executive of our strategic health authority. I have also raised the matter with the authority's chairman, who has declined to use her good offices to facilitate a meeting.
	This is scandalous at a time when the health care of my constituents is at risk. My constituents deserve to know that future funding for their local hospital will be secured and that the improvements that the Government have made at Warrington hospital—and there have been considerable improvements—will be maintained and built on. My constituents are entitled to know exactly why the hospital is in this position when the health authority in north Cheshire has received a 48 per cent. increase in funding from the Government since 1997.
	The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is causing great distress to my constituents and is undermining the morale of the hard-working staff at the hospital. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker that you will be able to grant my application so that we may know how future health funding for North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust is to be secured, and so that my constituents may be assured that improvements in their health care will be maintained in future.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) has said. I must give my decision, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Children's Television (Advertising)

Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent food and drink advertising during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling.
	Our children increasingly suffer from obesity and diabetes. These are potentially killer diseases, and they are of great concern to the Department of Health, which recognises that children eat too much fat, sugar and salt. In a written answer to me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—then a Health Minister—said that
	"average intakes of salt are up to twice the recommended amount."—[Official Report, 26 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 512W.]
	She went on to say that 85 per cent. of children failed to meet recommendations on the consumption of added sugars, and that a huge 92 per cent. failed to meet recommendations on the consumption of saturated fats.
	The Department of Health is tackling that appalling situation with an excellent national school fruit scheme, providing free fruit each day to thousands of pupils.
	The Minister also claims to have in place
	"major cross-Government programmes of work to improve healthy eating"—[Official Report, 15 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 782W.]
	Unfortunately, these programmes do not seem to have reached the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for the regulation of advertising during children's TV. It has failed to take action to prevent high fat, high salt and high sugar content food and drink advertising being targeted at pre-school children—two, three and four-year-olds.
	Little children watching independent television channels are daily being bombarded with images of happy little boys and girls eating high fat, high sugar and high salt content food and drink. They repeatedly hear catch-phrases and jingles designed to appeal to them. They repeatedly see pictures designed to attract their attention and remain in their young memories.
	Sustain, an alliance of more than 100 groups concerned about food issues, has recently campaigned to protect children from the marketing of food targeted specifically at children that gives an unbalanced nutritional message. Its campaign won support from the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Sustain supports of my Bill. The National Heart Forum has given its backing too. Its chief executive, Paul Lincoln, stated:
	"The harm starts early in life. We are very concerned about the targeting of children and young people as a market for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. The marketing consists of a saturation diet of advertising around children's TV programmes."
	He added:
	"The marketing of these foods undermines the Department of Health's efforts to promote healthy eating from an early age."
	My Bill calls for a ban on all food and drink advertising during toddler TV scheduling. The multinational, multi-billion pound food and drink and advertising industries oppose it. Obviously, their vested interest is not the health of our children. These industries say that children who suffer from diabetes and obesity are nothing to do with them. They say that children should exercise more. I agree; they should exercise more, but they should also eat less fat, sugar and salt.
	The obesity taskforce is pleased to see these issues raised by my Bill—so too is Diabetes UK. Diabetes UK believes that the aggressive marketing strategies of food companies, exposing children to high fat foods, have been partly responsible for increasing obesity and diabetes in children. Moreover, it is costing the national health service approximately £5 billion a year. That is an expense met by the taxpayer, not the multi-billion pound food and drink industry.
	Spokespeople from the advertising industry claim that if my Bill is successful, less children's television will be broadcast. That seems to me rather threatening and also undermines the claims by the television companies that children's TV is a form of public service broadcasting.
	My Bill simply calls for a period each day when children's television is free from food and drink advertising—free from marketing strategies that are becoming increasingly sophisticated. We are currently witnessing a step change in investment and direct targeting of an ever-younger cohort of children. My Bill would offer some brief respite and protection. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Shipley, Dr. Howard Stoate, Margaret Moran, Linda Perham, Vera Baird, Ann Clwyd, Ms Karen Buck, Dr. Brian Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Brian White, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Andrew Mackinlay.

Children's Television (Advertising)

Ms Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to prevent food and drink advertising during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 101].

Orders of the Day

Finance Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	[Relevant Document: Minutes of Evidence from the Treasury Committee, Session 2002–03, on the 2003 Budget, HC 652-i to –iii.]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Paul Boateng: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Finance Bill is about enterprise and fairness—meeting our responsibilities to business, taxpayers, the environment, the international community and the most vulnerable members of our society. The context of this Bill is one of continued economic uncertainty around the globe. In the past two years, many of our strongest competitors—notably, the United States, Germany and Japan—have experienced recession. We have recognised that the global slow-down has brought challenging times for businesses. It is a sign of the strength of the economic framework that the Government have put in place over the past six years that the economy has remained stable and has continued to grow, unlike those of our major competitors and in contrast to the recessions of the past.
	Despite the economic uncertainty around the world, we are able to meet our military responsibilities, and we have met the requirements of the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule year on year, with the public finances strongly in surplus over the current economic cycle. We do not intend to be diverted from our priorities of record investment in public services, achieving full employment and tackling child and pensioner poverty—building a Britain of economic strength and social justice.
	In the past, in less severe world downturns, as a consequence of the short-termism and economic mismanagement that, I fear, characterised the economic stewardship of the Conservative party—[Hon. Members: "Oh no."] Ah, yes—Britain was first into recession, last to come out and suffered a deeper depression than other countries. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like hearing that.

John Redwood: Does not the Minister accept that these 448 pages are designed to sandbag the British people with more taxes than have ever been imposed in the past? This is bumper, record taxation to smash enterprise in this economy.

Paul Boateng: I recognise no such thing, and I well remember when the right hon. Gentleman himself wielded the cosh, and taxation represented a burden on the ordinary taxpayer that it has not represented under this Government.
	Today, when 20 other countries have been in recession, Britain has had a record 43 consecutive quarters of growth—a record not achieved by the Opposition—and the longest period of continued growth for half a century. We are predicted to outpace our European competitors in growth next year.

George Osborne: Perhaps the Chief Secretary can explain why the British stock market has been outperformed by the American and French stock markets?

Paul Boateng: Taken from its peak, that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is simply not the case. He knows that global equity markets have suffered in the current downturn, and he would not expect the United Kingdom to be immune from that. However, the fact is that, in the early 1990s, when the hon. Gentleman peddled his wares as a researcher and Conservative party activist—we have got a note of his record on that matter, and it should be made more widely known—inflation reached almost 10 per cent. He well remembers the time. Today, we have inflation at its lowest level for 30 years—averaging just 2.3 per cent. since 1997. Under the Conservatives, interest rates hit 15 per cent. [Hon. Members: "Oh no."] Oh yes, and none of them is getting up now to defend a 15 per cent. interest rate. Today, at 3.75 per cent., the interest rate is at its lowest level for 50 years.
	In the past, under the Conservatives, unemployment was rising above 3 million, and Opposition Members will remember that. Today, Britain has more people in work than ever before. Almost 250,000 jobs have been created this year and, for the first time in 50 years, unemployment is lower than in Europe, Japan and America simultaneously.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Chief Secretary is painting a rosy picture of the economy. Can he tell my constituents and others who are very concerned about their pension deficits why, if everything is so wonderful, many pension schemes are in such serious trouble?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows well why pensions inevitably cannot be immune from downturns in equities. He also knows, however, that in the long term, equities represent an important part of any pension portfolio, as he will be the first person to recognise.

Jon Trickett: May I remind my right hon. Friend to tell Conservative Members that more than 3,000 pensioners in my constituency will welcome the extra £100 a year that they will all receive? In addition, many miners who were retired and pensioned off as a result of political malice by the Conservative party will very much welcome the new pension credit—as they have so far had to pay tax on their well-earned income—and other things that the Government have done for pensioners.

Paul Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the pension credit, nor least because all Members will want to play their part in ensuring maximum take-up. I know that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, working with the Inland Revenue, has made sure that a range of material is available to ensure that that is the case. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to make sure that they take up the cause of the pension credit, as that can only benefit pensioners in all our constituencies.

Robert Smith: I agree with the need to encourage take-up, as I did in relation to the minimum income guarantee campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, however, that if we encourage people to take up tax credits, this time, the computer system will be able to cope with the influx of applications that may be generated from such a campaign, and that people will not be left waiting for the payments should they decide to take them up?

Paul Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has that situation well in hand, and the computer systems are currently coping with the demand. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman will recall his party's predictions of doom and gloom in terms of take-up, and I welcome his commitment to increasing it. I hope that he will have the grace to admit, however, that the predictions of the Liberal Democrats that take-up for these credits would be low have proved to be lamentably wrong.

John Butterfill: Before we leave the subject of pensions, will the Chief Secretary accept that the imposition by this Government of a £5 billion a year tax on pensions, coupled with the increased regulations that have surrounded pensions, the introduction of disincentives to pension saving, and the failure to deal with all those disincentives, means that pensions in this country are now thoroughly discredited in the view of most of the population?

Paul Boateng: I accept no such thing. The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of the House and more than sufficient experience of this subject to know that his party first put up advance corporation tax. He knows as well as I do that the pension system in this country bears examination and comparison with that of the rest of Europe, where the pension system is putting those countries' economies into some considerable difficulty. I hope that he will give us credit for that, and for the measures that we have taken to preserve it.

David Cairns: Before my right hon. Friend moves off the issue of pensions altogether, will he assure me that, should the Government change pensions regulations, they will inform people of the effects of the changes, unlike what happened under the previous Conservative Government when a change was made to inherited SERPS but they did not tell the people who would suffer from it? That was another mess that this Government had to sort out on coming to power.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out, and he is charitable in not pointing out, too, the mis-selling that occurred when the Conservative party had stewardship of these matters.
	The fact is that, with additional jobs, we now have lower unemployment than Europe, Japan and America simultaneously, and our hard-won economic stability has been the key to sustainable growth and to promoting employment and opportunity for all. Since early 1997, 1.5 million more jobs have been created, over half of which are in the private sector and almost 70 per cent. of which are full-time. In the past year alone, as I have indicated, 250,000 more jobs were created, almost half of which were in the private sector. It is important to get the balance between public and private sectors right.

Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, because he said earlier that we had experienced 43 quarters without recession—virtually 11 years. Does he accept that Governments do not add to recession and do not bring us out of it, and that we should pay tribute to the manufacturing sector and the workers of our country?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the importance of both manufacturing and wealth creation. From my frequent visits to Northern Ireland, I know of people's concerns to ensure that they retain their competitiveness and that jobs are created there, too. Northern Ireland Members of all parties play an active part in ensuring that that is the case.

Henry Bellingham: The Chief Secretary is quite right to talk about wealth creation and manufacturing, and I am grateful for the support that he has given to small businesses over the years. Will he give the House the cost of the small business package in the Budget? Does he know the global total of the cost to small businesses—companies employing fewer than 50 people—of the national insurance increases that kicked in on 1 April?

Paul Boateng: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about the cost because I do not want to give him figures that might be misleading. He will know that tens of thousands of firms have been taken outside the scope of value added tax as a result of measures in the Budget. Many more firms will pay less tax and will benefit from our measures to reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses. He is right to point out that there is never any room for complacency about regulation and its impact on small businesses—that applies to successive Governments. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out the problems faced by the past Conservative Administration as a result of that, which is why we are determined that the Better Regulation Task Force and the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget should maintain our momentum to reduce the burden on business.

Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that investment in health from national insurance contributions is reducing the average time that a small business must wait before employees come back to work? At the same time, the tax credit system means that the average salary paid by many small businesses is a lot lower. In a sense, the working families tax credit was a subsidy for small businesses, and if the measures are taken together they provide one explanation for the rapid growth of the success of small businesses throughout Britain.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the cost incurred by business due to sickness, and I shall talk about that in some detail later in my speech.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby have probably experienced the most dramatic improvement to their employment potential since 1997. More than 40 per cent. more of my constituents—1,400 people—are now in work than was the case before. What further help will he give to encourage small businesses, especially in areas such as mine and around the coast, to ensure that we build on the solid foundations laid during the past six years?

Paul Boateng: The consultation document on equity finance that we published should assist small businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency, as should the development of enterprise areas and the advantages accrued by small businesses that start up and purchase commercial properties in such areas. It is important to recognise and understand clearly the problems faced in seaside and coastal towns. My hon. Friend has been a champion of that cause. It is largely as a result of work carried out by him and other Labour Members who represent seaside constituencies—

Henry Bellingham: And Conservative Members.

Paul Boateng: I hear the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that his constituency has a coast, but I do not think of it as a seaside town constituency—

John Bercow: Gross discourtesy.

Paul Boateng: Not at all. I have crossed swords with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for many years, since he was in short trousers—although that was, of course, quite recently. No discourtesy is intended. I hope that all hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies will accept the Treasury's invitation to attend a seminar on the issues that affect such constituencies.

Henry Bellingham: I will be there.

Paul Boateng: I look forward to that. We need a clearer understanding of what we can do to improve seaside constituencies.

Michael Weir: As someone who also represents a seaside constituency, I am pleased to hear the Minister's comments. This is the second Budget in a row in which the Government have changed corporation tax and trumpeted that as a help for small businesses, but does he recognise that many small businesses, which are the backbone of economies in constituencies such as mine, are self-employed partnerships that pay income tax rather than corporation tax? They are receiving no help. Will the Government stop their thrust towards corporations and incorporation and help the self-employed in partnerships?

Paul Boateng: That is not a fair or accurate analysis. Allowances are available to the self-employed in partnerships, and those are of assistance. The package of reforms to improve small business access to finance, the consultation on the scope for introducing small business investment companies in the UK, the improvement to the research and development tax credits and the package of deregulatory reform for small businesses have all benefited small businesses. Although there is no room for complacency, small businesses have probably been helped more than anything by low interest rates and the stability that has resulted from the policies adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. All that would be put at stake were some of the wilder fantasies of the nationalists given their head. However, the signs from recent elections are that that will not happen.

Kali Mountford: At a conference in west Yorkshire on Friday attended by representatives of the regional development agency and employers' confederations, employers made it clear that, although stability is key to their development, and notwithstanding the low interest rates, they still encounter the problem of unco-operative banks, especially when it comes to small businesses. I direct my right hon. Friend to the Select Committee report that highlighted that banking problem. Will he look again at what can be done to make it easier for small businesses to access finance?

Paul Boateng: I well remember that report and my hon. Friend's contribution to it as a Committee member. I am sure that her contribution is missed by her colleagues on the Committee, as it is by everyone. As a result of the Committee's work and a robust dialogue between business and the Treasury, the good news is that the banks are increasingly aware of their responsibilities to small business and of the opportunities for good business that arise from meeting their needs. That is why we have introduced a package of reforms to increase and improve access to finance for small business, and why the work of the Phoenix fund, the role of venture capital in this area and the consultation on the scope for introducing small business investment companies is important.
	For business, it is not just about delivering, as we have done, the monetary and fiscal frameworks that have kept the economy stable and growing in the good times, and indeed in difficult times. Reforms to the competition authorities, corporation tax, investment, innovation and skills are the prior conditions for the creation of a dynamic, enterprising and productive Britain.

Michael Jack: rose—

Paul Boateng: I should like to make a little headway, but I look forward very much to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as he always makes interesting contributions to these debates.
	International comparisons show that we have a low-tax environment that is friendly to entrepreneurship—the UN's trade and development commission ranked the UK second in the world in attracting inward investment in a report published only last September. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that the UK is the best place to start out and succeed in business, and its latest figures show that our corporate income taxes plus employer social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product in 2000 were the third lowest in the EU, lower than those of France, Germany and Italy. That is a record that the right hon. Gentleman should give us credit for, and I hope that he will now do so.

Michael Jack: I am always delighted when the Government follow the trend set by the previous Conservative Government in lowering marginal tax rates both at the personal and business level—it is nice that a good idea has been recognised. However, in the context of the Government's continuing consultation on reforms to corporation tax, will the Chief Secretary explain to the House what benefit will accrue to British business from the abolition of tax relief for allowances under the present arrangements for corporation tax and its replacement with allowances against the rate at which assets depreciate?

Paul Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have a continuing programme of reform and rationalisation of corporation tax, which has enabled us to reduce the burden of taxation on companies and is widely welcomed. One is always concerned about anything that increases complexity, but I have not heard it being seriously suggested that on balance we have not got it right and that our record does not compare favourably with the stewardship of corporate taxation when he was Financial Secretary. He is not one to blow his own trumpet—well, not much—but he should give us some credit for the reforms that we have introduced in this field. No doubt, during the consideration of the Bill in Committee—I hope that he will again grace us with his presence this year, as that Committee would not be the same without him—we will have an opportunity to explore these matters in a little more depth.
	We are not complacent. We are working to make the process easier still, and have identified more than 500 regulations introduced by previous Governments for reform or abolition. Our changes have already helped small businesses to employ almost 400,000 more people than they did in 1997, which tells us something about whether the Government are getting it right in relation to small businesses. I would argue that we are, and that the Opposition did not.
	This Budget and Finance Bill mark the next stage of reform to give greater flexibility in capital markets, product markets, housing and planning, and the labour market. Clause 136 provides support for people who regularly work at home under flexible working arrangements. Employers will be able to meet some or all of the incidental household costs incurred by employees who work at home without giving rise to a tax charge. The Bill provides necessary recognition of changing patterns of business, making sure that the tax system does not bear down unfairly as an inhibitor on people who choose flexible working.

John Bercow: Perhaps I may be permitted briefly to return to the subject of macro-economics. Given the interdependence of fiscal and monetary policy and the favourable intra-European comparisons that the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago, what assessment has he made as Chief Secretary to the Treasury of the merits or demerits of the proposed changes to the voting procedures of the European Central Bank?

Paul Boateng: I must admit that I have not actually made an assessment.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman should have. It is his job.

Paul Boateng: I am interested in the subject, but it would be quite untrue to say that I have made an assessment of it. One watches the development of the European Central Bank with interest, as all hon. Members would expect. I celebrate the fact that it was this Government who had the good sense to make the Bank of England independent, which the Opposition opposed and would never have had the guts to do. One would hope that at least one of them would have the good grace to stand up and congratulate us on the steps that we have taken.

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has much too much form for us to believe that he is about to stand up to congratulate us on allowing our central bank the independence that was its due and that has so benefited the economy.

Henry Bellingham: Good idea.

Paul Boateng: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate us, albeit from a sedentary position, on the measures that we have taken.

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Boateng: Not at the moment. I want to make some progress.
	Clauses 132 to 134 freeze corporation tax rates. At 30 per cent., the main rate is lower than in any other major industrialised country, and the 0 per cent. starting rate means that 150,000 companies pay no corporation tax whatever.
	Clause 164 extends the 100 per cent. first-year allowance available to small businesses for spending on information and communications technology for a further year to March 2004.
	Clauses 158 to 161 contain a package of measures to simplify the capital gains tax system, including an extension of business assets taper relief to improve access to let property for unincorporated traders. I hope that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who understandably expresses concern for unincorporated traders, recognises the step that that represents.
	Clauses 138 to 140 simplify employee share schemes to make them easier for companies to administer, give employees in such schemes more flexibility, remove anomalies and provide a statutory corporation tax deduction for contributions to those schemes.
	Following feedback from businesses, the Finance Bill improves the way in which the research and development tax credit works, allowing more businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and more types of expenditure to qualify, and helping to take us toward the American spend on research and development of around 2.8 per cent. of GDP. Any comparison between ourselves and the United States in the area of productivity—we still have a way to go to catch up with its success—recognises the need for us to address the issue of spend on research and development, and we shall continue to consult.

David Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that, and for the action that the Government are taking, but does he share my concern that in the frontier technologies, in biotech and software development—a growth market—with its high-value, high-paid and high-skilled jobs, Europe still lags well behind the United States? With specific reference to the electronics sector, what message can I take back to my constituents, many of whom are employed in that sector, to show that the Government are aware of the issue and are addressing the need for research and development in the frontier technologies?

Paul Boateng: One of the reasons why we have been considering the definition of research and development is precisely to ensure that the tax system recognises the very fast pace of development in the area to which my hon. Friend refers. A few months ago, I visited a company in Scotland that was looking at lasers and crystal technology. One of the messages that it gave to me—I have received the same message from others working in the area, not least in technologies that have been developed as a result of space research—was that continuing dialogue is vital. I know that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is anxious about developing dialogue between the Inland Revenue and industry, as well as with academia, to ensure that we get the definition right. My message to my hon. Friend's constituents is that we are absolutely determined to do just that.
	The Bill seeks to build on the steps that we have already taken and on the messages delivered to us by business, which said that it wanted the minimum spending requirement to be reduced from £25,000 to £10,000 to help small firms to qualify. Business also wanted us to simplify the rules for apportioning staff costs to ensure that staff doing small amounts of R and D are not excluded, and to extend coverage to agency staff, as smaller companies may need to buy in expertise to take them to the next stage. We wanted to ensure that that issue was recognised in the tax credits that are available, as it is very important for projects of limited duration.

John Butterfill: The right hon. Gentleman has been most generous in giving way. By way of recompense for his giving way to me now and on another occasion, may I congratulate him on the extension of taper relief to unincorporated traders? The anomaly was long overdue for correction and that move is very welcome. However, will he say something about the justification for excluding the same level of taper relief in respect of quoted companies, many of which are smaller than some relatively large unquoted companies and some unincorporated traders?

Paul Boateng: One of the greatest challenges facing any Chancellor in coming to a judgment on such issues is considering the balance across the whole tax system. As those of us who have form in respect of the Finance Bill—I am afraid that I do, as has the hon. Gentleman in his time—know, getting that balance right is important; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is constantly extolling its virtues. The judgment has to be made and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, others would arrive at a different judgment, but on balance I think that he has got it right, and hon. Members would not expect me to say anything else.
	All the reforms have been designed for business and with business. We have listened to businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, and to the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the TUC, which has been at the forefront in calling for improvements to the R and D system. All those organisations have made their voice known and have had an important contribution to make—a contribution that has been reflected in the Budget.
	I should like to say a few words about public services. Economic dynamism goes hand in hand with social justice. The Budget and the Finance Bill take forward our policies for enterprise and innovation, but not at the price of fairness. They take forward the agenda that we are promulgating, but underwrite it with fairness. To reduce the cost to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas, and to support the regeneration of brownfield sites, we announced in the Budget the removal of stamp duty from all non-residential property transactions in the 2,000 enterprise areas. That measure, which is covered by clause 57, is part of a package of measures to encourage business investment in our most disadvantaged communities—measures to encourage enterprise that complement, not conflict with, our priorities of full employment, tackling child and pensioner poverty and delivering high-quality public services through investment and reform. The 2002 spending review set out our plans for an extra £61 billion of spending on public services by 2005–06, with three quarters of the additional spending going towards health, education, transport, housing and the fight against crime.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is in his place, urged us to cut that investment by 20 per cent.—a call that was never denied and that was confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Andrew Love: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Budget debate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) called not only for a 20 per cent. cut, but for a cut of up to 100 per cent.?

Paul Boateng: That is a very alarming prospect, but nothing surprises me in relation to the right hon. Member for Wokingham.

John Redwood: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) might have said that I was talking about cutting 100 per cent. of waste and unnecessary expenditure in order to spend more on teachers, nurses and doctors.

Paul Boateng: That is a lot of paperclips.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Boateng: We have touched a raw nerve.

Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend was talking about the fact that there are more hospital administrators than beds.

Paul Boateng: I have here a quote from the Leader of the Opposition, which makes it clear that Conservative Members were not talking about cutting hospital administrators, but about cutting costs across the board, rejecting extra NHS staff who do not deliver and so-called wasted expenditure on consultants. We look forward to hearing about more areas where they are going to make those 20 per cent. cuts.

Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure would not only be a mean and misguided policy, but would bring about the demise of public services? Just as 200 years ago doctors thought that they had to bleed all the blood out of people to make them well, cutting that amount of money from the health service would bring about the death of the whole system. We must absolutely reject that ridiculous option offered by the Conservatives.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cuts would mean losing £13.6 billion from the NHS budget.

David Cameron: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that since 1997, when his party came to office, the cost of running central Government has increased by £3.5 billion; and can he tell us what percentage increase that represents?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to accept his figures. He knows that it is grossly irresponsible for Conservative Members to call for cuts of 20 per cent. and maintain that no doctors, nurses or police officers would consequently lose their jobs. That would be the effect of the Flight plan.

Kevin Brennan: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that although many Conservative Members have leaped to their feet to change the subject, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has not been tempted from his seat? Should he not defend himself against the accusation of proposing cuts of 20 per cent. instead of simply sitting there?

Paul Boateng: I suspect that he will defend himself at some length, not only here but Upstairs in Committee. However, he will not deny his words:
	"I am digging through current spending, finding opportunities for cuts. It's too early to say how much but it could be up to 20 per cent."
	It was later confirmed that that would apply across the board. The hon. Gentleman went further and became more specific about the NHS. He said:
	"The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."
	Charges and cuts are Conservative Members' prescriptions. They cannot deny that because I have their words in black and white, and such a policy would be implemented it they were ever given stewardship of the economy again.

Kali Mountford: I point out that I was a civil servant when civil service jobs were perceived as throwaway items and unemployment rose to 3 million. I also want to endorse my right hon. Friend's point about investing in areas of social exclusion. At Moor End high school in my constituency, only 28 per cent. of pupils achieved five GCSEs at grades A to C. The figure has now increased to 58 per cent. Does not that show the true price of investing in public services? It makes things better for people.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. That should be celebrated by hon. Members of all parties.

John Bercow: Will the Chief Secretary give way?

Paul Boateng: No. I have given way many times and the hon. Gentleman will have his chance. I shall come back to him.
	A healthy, skilled work force in strong communities are essential to maintaining economic stability and building the foundations of future innovation and prosperity on which we depend. The Budget confirmed that that would continue to be our policy. The 1 per cent. increase in national insurance that was announced last year and will be paid from April will go entirely and directly to the NHS. Consequently, by 2008, there will be 80,000 more nurses and 25,000 more doctors than in 1997.
	The shadow Chancellor described the increase in national insurance contributions as a tax on jobs. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear", but he used the same argument against another policy that was abhorrent to the Conservative party: the national minimum wage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described that as an axe on jobs. He is well known for his play on words, but however one plays on the words the policy was no such thing. We created 1.5 million more jobs. That was the measure of our success, which the Opposition could not hope to replicate.
	Everyone benefits from a national health service that is free at the point of need, so everyone who can contribute to its long-term financial future should do that. The Opposition claim that the rise in national insurance is a burden on business, but it means that employers will pay approximately £10.50 a week for an employee on average earnings compared with £30 in Germany and £60 in France. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said in his infamous memo that the Conservative party should consider France and Germany. Yet employers pay £30 a week in Germany and £60 in France. Does anyone seriously suggest that that is a better way to fund the NHS than the measures that we have introduced? The answer to that can only be no.

John Bercow: Will the Chief Secretary now answer the question that he ducked 22 days ago at the conclusion of the Budget debate? Given that the increased expenditure on the national health service has not been matched by a commensurate increase in clinical activity, and that the Government say that they favour reforms, will he name three that will make a difference?

Paul Boateng: It simply is not true to say that there has not been an increase in clinical activity.

John Bercow: I said "commensurate".

Paul Boateng: Well, it depends what the hon. Gentleman means by "commensurate". I suspect that he and I will have different definitions of the word. There are now more operations, and more treatments being given outside in the community, closer to people's homes. There are better treatments for cancer, and better dispensation of drugs. All those things are happening, as well as there being additional nurses, doctors and people working in radiography and on the front line to improve people's health. By any count, on any indices, the NHS has improved, and to say otherwise is, quite frankly, an absolute travesty of the truth.
	It is unfair when the burden of tax falls on businesses or individuals who play by the rules and who pay their fair share, while tax cheats distort competition and push up the tax rates that the rest of us have to pay to make up the difference. That is not fair, and taxpayers rightly expect the Government to close tax loopholes and to tackle tax fraud so that the burden is not unfairly placed on normal taxpayers because a minority abuse the system. I suspect that we shall spend much time in our deliberations on these clauses Upstairs. Of course we need to get it right, but I hope that it will be possible for Members on both sides of the House to welcome the measures to close tax loopholes that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be taking us through in detail.
	This year's Budget announced a compliance and enforcement package to enable the Inland Revenue to counter direct tax avoidance and to contribute an additional £1.6 billion of revenue over three years. The Finance Bill includes a wider package of measures to ensure a level playing field for taxpayers who fulfil their obligations.

David Laws: In respect of tax avoidance, and of the loopholes that the Chief Secretary says that he is now closing, what action have he and the Chancellor taken since the Treasury Committee looked into the issue of tax avoidance by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in respect of the Mapeley STEPS—strategic transfer of the estate to the private sector—transaction?

Paul Boateng: We replied to the Treasury Committee on Friday, and it will want to consider carefully what is outlined in that memorandum. The hon. Gentleman might wish to return to that issue when the Committee has had an opportunity to reflect on it.
	We are introducing measures to tackle VAT fraud and avoidance—in particular missing trader fraud, which costs us billions and makes billions in profit for organised crime—and measures to close down other schemes that a minority of businesses and individuals had been using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. All those important measures are contained in the Bill and I think that they will all be welcomed. We are also taking action to prevent tax avoidance through manipulating share schemes, coupled with giving support to companies that want to implement employee share schemes in line with the legislation. We have also included clarifications because we have listened to business; it has said that it wants greater clarity in this area so that it can implement such schemes to give people a sense of ownership and a stake in the success of their company.
	There is action to counter capital gains tax avoidance through offshore trusts and second-hand life insurance policies, and action to close a loophole in the controlled foreign company rules allowing some companies to escape UK tax on profits from extended warranties and credit protection insurance. Those measures follow the Budget announcement of a compliance and enforcement package to enable the Inland Revenue to counter direct tax avoidance and thus contribute an additional £1.6 billion over three years. There is also a comprehensive modernisation of stamp duty to counter widespread tax avoidance, which distorts the commercial property market and business decision making, and has given rise to contracts and artificial vehicles for the transfer of property.
	I do not think that any of the activities I have described could be justified by any reasonable person.

Mark Prisk: The Chief Secretary said that consultation with business is extremely important, which indeed it is. He has now mentioned the new land tax—or, at any rate, what he describes as a modernisation. Can he explain why Ministers instructed the Revenue on 21 January to end all consultations? Elements of the Bill have not been mentioned, were not consulted on, and do not have the support of business.

Paul Boateng: No such instruction was made known to me, or to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
	In modernising stamp duty we want to ensure that it is better targeted. We are taking comprehensive powers to address widespread tax avoidance. We are reducing the burden on smaller businesses, and reforming and modernising the framework of tax, bringing it into line with other modern taxes. The modernised charge will be mandatory, and there will be new enforcement and compliance powers. We are levelling the playing field across different types of transaction, which can only increase fairness. We are clamping down on the avoidance of stamp duty, while removing duty on property other than land, interests in partnerships and shares, and securities.
	All those measures emanate from consultation and listening, and I believe that they will be widely welcomed by business.

Jonathan Djanogly: Do not the proposals relating to VAT fraud and Customs and Excise come too late? As is shown by recent cases, the Government have failed to crack down adequately on fraud, which has led to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds in VAT, and have failed to control Customs and Excise as well.

Paul Boateng: That is not true. Over the years, Customs and Excise has learned from what some of those cases have brought to light. I believe that Customs and Excise in this country is widely recognised as a world leader in the field. When I went abroad as Financial Secretary I encountered nothing but admiration for it, not least in the Customs community, and I know that the current Economic Secretary is finding the same. We should be very careful before doing down the hard-working men and women involved in law enforcement in Customs and Excise, who take great risks on behalf of the Revenue. They should be congratulated on their vigilance and determination.

Mark Prisk: Will the Chief Secretary give way?

Paul Boateng: Not at this point.
	We want to create that level playing field, and to end the highly complex artificial arrangements into which some people enter to avoid paying. In the long term, the modernisation of stamp duty will facilitate electronic commerce and electronic conveyancing. It will allow fairer treatment of house purchases funded by certain types of alternative mortgage product. The double charge on so-called Islamic mortgages, for instance, will be removed.

Mark Prisk: Will the Chief Secretary give way?

Paul Boateng: Not at this point.
	By raising a fair share of tax from large commercial deals, we shall further the interests of small businesses and give them more protection. The proposed £150,000 threshold for commercial transactions will eliminate the charge on about—

Mark Prisk: Peanuts!

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman shouts that out, but he really ought to reflect on his own Government's record in this area. The fact is that when the Conservatives had the opportunity, they did absolutely nothing at all to ensure modernisation and reform of stamp duty. [Interruption.] It is no use their wittering on about this being a new tax; the fact is that they ought to have seen the need for reform. Simply to dismiss this as a new tax or a new burden does no service at all to the impulse for reform that existed for many years before this Government took office, but to which the Conservatives singularly failed to respond. This new proposed threshold, which will exempt 35,000 small business transactions a year from tax, certainly does not constitute peanuts; it is something to be welcomed. The removal altogether of stamp duty on non-residential properties in 2,000 enterprise areas will be widely welcomed by small businesses throughout the country, including in the constituencies of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	We are meeting our responsibilities to the environment in terms of the sustainable use of resources. This Finance Bill contains carefully calibrated tax and economic incentives that will encourage this, while not undermining the competitiveness of British business. There are new duty differentials for sulphur-free fuels and bioethanol, and a new, low-carbon band of vehicle excise duty for the lowest CO2 emission cars, which will allow motorists to save up to £110 per year by choosing such vehicles. We are listening to the calls for an increase in the landfill tax rate of £1 per tonne for this year and next, to provide business certainty. [Interruption.] Conservative Members mock the notion that we have listened, but the fact is that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been calling—not least through the good offices of the Environmental Audit Select Committee—for such an increase for many years. We have listened, and now we have it.
	We are demonstrating through this Budget a commitment to fairness, a commitment to flexibility, a commitment to public services and a commitment to ensuring that we meet the needs of these times, whereby we deliver where successive Conservative Governments have failed to deliver, recognise and meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, and move forward with investment in public services, tackling poverty and social exclusion despite the global slow-down. As such, I commend this Bill to the House.

Howard Flight: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because the provisions contained in its two volumes of 447 pages increase the burden of taxation on the economy, fail to take account of the effects of inflation and will lead to a further decline in the competitiveness and relative attractiveness of the UK as a location for investment."
	Notwithstanding the Chancellor's absence today, may I add my personal congratulations to him and his wife on their recent announcement? I am sure that the whole House wishes that all goes well for them. I also hope that the experience of the costs of raising a family will in due course convert the right hon. Gentleman to the merits of a lower-tax economy. I should also like to draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I want briefly to mention the programme motion, which we will reach later. It provides a guillotine for the Committee stage to finish on 12 June, leaving only seven sitting days to debate a complex, if not very constructive, Finance Bill. I suspect that that will not allow sufficient time for a full discussion in territory that is, candidly, not particularly party political, so we will oppose the programme motion.
	After the Chief Secretary's interesting speech this afternoon, I am sure that the whole House will feel relieved to have been spared a repeat of the rant in his winding-up speech to the Budget debate. The Chief Secretary will be disappointed by the local election results, particularly by the fact that his and his party's attempt to misrepresent and smear what I said about the scope for reducing waste and cutting non-productive bureaucratic costs failed to affect the outcome. It was a pathetic attempt by the Labour party to divert attention from the Chancellor's economic failures.
	I remind the Chief Secretary of Labour's 1997 general election promise to root out
	"waste and inefficiency in public spending"
	and to
	"conduct a central spending review and departmental reviews to assess how to use resources better".
	Rather than misrepresenting what I said, the Chief Secretary would do better to get on with precisely that. I also remind him of the debate earlier this year on the Public Accounts Committee reports, which had identified more than £20 billion of waste in public spending in the period that was assessed.

Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that action against the waste identified by the Public Accounts Committee has, along with 90 per cent. of its recommendations, already been implemented. He is calling for a further 20 per cent. reduction in overall public expenditure. Where specifically will those cuts be made—out of thin air, or is he talking rubbish?

Howard Flight: I get rather fed up with Labour Members misquoting what I said. Some items in the Public Accounts Committee recommendations, particularly VAT fraud, are beginning to be dealt with, but it is pathetic that the Government have been in power for seven years and done so little to address waste and fraud. They have enormously increased the costs of bureaucracy—by £3.5 billion on central Government. They have wasted more than £1 billion a year on information technology systems that have gone wrong. They have failed to address effective procurement in the public sector, wasting approximately £4 billion a year. In short, they have been completely hopeless at securing good value for taxpayers' money. If the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) bothered to read the interview, he would find that I was not talking about reducing expenditure on health or education. Indeed, I was talking about realising resources to increase effective online delivery. It is time that the hon. Gentleman ceased to misrepresent what I said.

Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in a memo dated 12 November 2001—predating his interview by some time—he said to the shadow Chancellor:
	"The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services"?
	Does not that amount to charges, or does he deny those words?

Howard Flight: The Chief Secretary refers to a confidential memo that the Labour party intercepted improperly, which had nothing to do with the interview about cutting waste. Had the Chief Secretary been party to the entire discussion, he would know that we were talking about how to make the best use of the French system in this country. We were not talking about any programme—for which it would not be my responsibility—to levy charges in the health service. If the Labour party plays dirty by intercepting electronic mail, as in this case, it may find that it gets only half the story. The issue is this: why have the Government not addressed the reduction in waste much more effectively?

Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Howard Flight: I am afraid that the Chief Secretary has had more than sufficient time to lie and to misrepresent what I have said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw one of the allegations that he has just made.

Howard Flight: I withdraw with pleasure anything improper that I have said, but my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out in this Chamber that Labour party suggestions that the Conservatives had a programme to cut expenditure on health and education were lies. It was that to which I referred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would contribute beneficially to the progress of the debate if he specifically withdrew the allegations that a right hon. Member lied.

Howard Flight: I am happy to withdraw an allegation that the right hon. Gentleman lied and say that I wish he would cease playing the game of misrepresentation.
	The Bill—likely to be the Chancellor's last Finance Bill—is a rather poor and lop-sided effort.

Henry Bellingham: Has not my hon. Friend nailed the ridiculous and absurd idea peddled by the Labour party that the shadow Treasury team wants to cut 20 per cent. across the board? Should not the Government desist from making such accusations?

Howard Flight: My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor made the position clear, and the electorate were not in any way impressed by the Chief Secretary or the Labour party's misrepresentations. In fact, they gave Labour a thoroughly negative vote, with the Conservatives gaining more than 550 seats. Even the BBC—the Government's propaganda organ—expressed surprise that the Conservatives had done better than expected.

John Redwood: Did my hon. Friend, like me, experience many doorstep conversations in which people asked where all the money had gone? They have not seen it go to teachers, nurses or doctors, or for more operations. They are as upset as my hon. Friend about the waste and the nonsense from the Government, who rip us off but do not provide the service.

Howard Flight: That is precisely the point. The public want to know where the 50 per cent. increase in taxes raised has gone, because it has certainly not gone on improved delivery of public services.
	Let us focus on the Bill; 447 pages, 214 clauses and 43 schedules. Strangely, more than 50 per cent.—51.5 per cent. by volume, or 230 pages—deals with just two territories. The first is the new stamp duty tax and the introduction of the lease duty, and comprises 139 pages. The second is the issue of employee share schemes and the major changes to the law on employee share acquisition, and amounts to 91 pages. Both of those are massively complex proposals and reflect similar problems. The Government have endeavoured to increase tax takes substantially but have failed to draft effective legislation. On stamp duty, there is the issue of the favoured enterprise areas, where stamp duty does not apply. The Government are surprised that businesses react to that by endeavouring to minimise their stamp duty liabilities elsewhere. Similarly, in the area of employee share arrangements, the attractions of the business taper, with capital gains tax coming down to 10 per cent., have, not surprisingly, served as a motivation to others to construct share schemes that reduce their tax liabilities.
	The proposals on lease duty were not included in the draft legislation on the reform of stamp duty. They amount to a major new stealth tax, and not the promised reform of stamp duty. The new tax should be called the land transfer tax. We believe that the Chancellor should have referred to it as a new tax in the Budget.

Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government raise tax so that the money can be spent on public services such as health, hospitals and new schools. The hon. Gentleman criticises individual tax rises in the Bill. What other elements in the Bill would allow us to raise the money for that expenditure in a different way, or is he simply looking for ways to finance his cuts to public services?

Howard Flight: I would not want to prejudge what the Standing Committee will do, but we have objected to taxes being raised that are not being spent effectively. The hon. Gentleman seems to miss the point that no benefit is achieved if taxation is raised yet public services are not improved. That is our criticism of the Government's return to Labour's old tax-and-spend policies. It is the same old failure that has been evident throughout most of my lifetime.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Howard Flight: In a moment. I want to make some points about the new tax.
	Ministers promised reform, but then broke off consultations arbitrarily and without warning last February. That has been regarded as a breach of faith, and the Government have not explained their actions. The Government have missed the opportunity to reform stamp duty for home owners, and also to remove some of the iniquities in the market and the high rates of marginal taxation. Indeed, the new tax has some of the same iniquities as the old stamp duty. It retains some of the arbitrary price bands, and the new stamp duty lease tax applied to value added tax is a double tax—a tax upon a tax.
	Because it includes leases, the new tax will hit many more people, especially many small and medium-sized businesses, and charities. Their tax burden could be between four and 10 times higher than at present. The new tax will serve to shorten leases, and thus could often reduce capital investment, which would not be economic on a shorter lease. All of that comes at the wrong time, in the wake of the national insurance contribution increases and with business rates and liability insurance costs rising dramatically.
	What estimates have the Government made in respect of small business? Will the Chief Secretary say how many firms and jobs will be affected?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government's fiscal stance, and denied what was said earlier about his proposals for Government spending. Will he therefore say what he considers to be the appropriate proportion of gross domestic product that the Government should devote to public expenditure?

Howard Flight: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should ask that. He will know that the Treasury Committee spent a considerable amount of time asking the Chancellor the same question, and he refused to give any answer. If the Chancellor refuses to answer that question, I do not see why I should answer it.
	No Labour Member can possibly be satisfied with the extent to which the Government have raised taxes. Taxes have gone up 50 per cent. since the Government came to power, yet there has been a complete failure to deliver improvements in services. The electorate gave the Government the benefit of the doubt at the last general election, but I suggest that the local election results made it clear that the population is fed up with more and more tax and no delivery. The new stamp duty tax occupies about one third of the Bill, and the compliance costs are likely to be high and to add to already high UK property costs, reducing our international competitiveness. How will that help inward investment? In our view, the proposals are the wrong way to tackle tax avoidance. What is needed is genuine reform and a collaborative approach to business.
	The Chartered Institute of Taxation is dismayed by the abrupt termination of the consultation process without effective explanation at a time when several major issues require further consultation. The institute believes that any decision to go ahead without further discussions and to implement in December could produce unworkable legislation that might adversely affect the property market. The particular worry is the impact on smaller and middle-sized companies. The tenants of pubs may find themselves facing up-front bills for £6,000. A modest London-based service business leasing 4,000 sq ft in the Victoria area would be likely to face an increase from £3,000 to more than £12,000 under the new tax proposals. The measure will have damaging effects, particularly on small and medium-sized service businesses.

Paul Boateng: If what the hon. Gentleman has just said is true, why did Bill Moyes, director general of the British Retail Consortium, describe the measures as especially good news for small retail businesses? Why did he also say:
	"It is good to know that the Treasury have listened to the retail sector."?

Howard Flight: I suggest that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury awaits further evidence at the Committee stage. He will find that there has been some major misunderstanding about what the Government propose.

George Osborne: Perhaps the Chief Secretary is unaware of the comments made by the director general of the CBI, who said:
	"It is clear that these proposals will seriously increase the cost of leased business properties for many companies . . . could be devastating for high street businesses."

Paul Boateng: Bill Moyes says different.

Howard Flight: I gently advise the Chief Secretary, who is commenting from a sedentary position, not to indulge in such complacency. The arithmetic, as he knows, is such that tax applies on the present value of leases above the figure of £150,000, and not on the value per annum. When the Chancellor first made his announcement, in language that was not entirely clear, a number of people misunderstood what he was saying. Most reaction since has been similar to the example that I quoted a moment ago, to the effect that the tax will bear hard on smaller and medium-sized businesses.

Mark Simmonds: May I assist my hon. Friend in answering the comments made by Mr. Moyes by saying that many members of the British Retail Consortium, of which Mr. Moyes is chairman, are deeply unhappy and dissatisfied with those comments?

Howard Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for that.
	My final quotation on the proposals comes from the head of stamp tax at Deloitte and Touche:
	"I wonder if the Chancellor is using the new lease duty to recapture the revenue he is going to be losing in enterprise areas."
	Schedule 22, made effective by clause 139, is the second major lump of this lop-sided Bill, with 72 pages that completely rewrite the law on employee share acquisition. We welcome attempts to stem avoidance, but the Government should examine why avoidance is happening. In this case, it is because national insurance contributions have been increased and capital gains tax reduced to a level where the incentive to arbitrage has been rendered that much greater. Like other schemes that the Labour Government have introduced, the 10 per cent. business asset capital gains tax rate is welcomed by those who benefit, but it inevitably risks incentivising distortions in behaviour.
	It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the Government wish to stem avoidance; a clear statement of policy is needed. When is a share gain capital and when is it to be taxed as income? What about equity incentives, which are given in management buy-outs or venture capital transactions and which typically feature performance-related enhancement to management's share rights? We have, in aggregate, 82 pages of legislation, published a week after some of it has come into effect, without any warning or consultation, which is widely regarded as unacceptable unless, first, there is a major revenue loss, and secondly, legislation can deal with the problem unambiguously. Neither of those two tests has been passed.
	The rushed and unsatisfactory nature of the Bill is illustrated by the fact that I have spotted yet another mistake in the Treasury's advice. In at least one instance, the explanatory notes contain a contradiction. On page 281, new section 446L(6) refers to non-commercial increases; the explanatory notes refer to non-commercial reductions.
	I asked the leading lawyer on employee share schemes to comment on schedule 22. He said it is massively complicated and impossible to explain, even to a highly sophisticated person. He said that it is scandalous that schedule 22, in all its Technicolor complexity, is being introduced without any consultation or draft legislation. He also said that it imposes many new charges and burdens, some of which are retrospective. Those two lumps of legislation make up over half of this unsatisfactory Finance Bill.
	There are, of course, some welcome items in the Bill. We welcome the fact that, at last, the Government are making some attempts to crack down on VAT fraud and missing trader fraud. We welcome the anti-avoidance VAT measures dealing with property, although we understand that the loophole of which the Labour party made use in respect of its party headquarters has not yet been addressed, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to tackle that in Committee.
	We welcome the reduction in the minimum expenditure threshold for research and development tax credits to £10,000, but this country is fast becoming uncompetitive in the area of R and D incentives. The UK regime is already materially less favourable than those of Spain, Portugal, Australia and Canada.
	We welcome the increase in the qualifying threshold ceiling for capital allowances for small and medium enterprises up to £20 million, and we welcome the increase in the VAT exemption ceiling on turnover up to £56,000, although, as others have pointed out, the Government persist in their unwise anomaly of having a nil corporation tax rate for small businesses that are incorporated but no matching or evened-out arrangements for unincorporated businesses. The Government are then surprised when that leads to a massive and unnecessary incorporation of small traders trying to benefit from that anomaly.
	We welcome the abolition of petroleum revenue tax on new business contracts involving third-party use of pipelines in the North sea, which will apply from next January, but we remain of the view, as expressed in debates on the previous Finance Bill, that petroleum revenue tax will have a net negative effect in terms of overall revenues and costs and will severely damage the continuing exploitation of North sea reserves.
	We welcome the clarification of tax relief for adopters and foster parents and we welcome the climate change levy exemptions. Finally, we welcome the fact that National Savings is about to introduce cards to facilitate withdrawals and deposits—arrangements for savers who have lost their passbooks have hitherto been highly unsatisfactory.
	What has happened to the child trust fund—one of the stars of the Chancellor's announcement? There is nothing about it in the Finance Bill and no announcement has been made about when legislation will be introduced. There has been a statement to the effect that something will be said in the summer, but will the Paymaster General kindly let the House know when such legislation is likely to be introduced and when citizens will be able to avail themselves of the child trust fund? I understand that the fund may not now go live until early 2005, so precisely what has happened?
	The reality is that the Finance Bill adds as much additional stealth tax as the Chancellor dares without risking pushing the economy into recession. The Chancellor's growth forecasts have been branded as wildly optimistic by the much-revered ITEM Club think-tank, which uses the Treasury's model. This year, ITEM forecasts 1.9 per cent. growth, whereas the Chancellor forecasts growth of 2 to 2.5 per cent. ITEM forecasts 2.6 per cent. growth next year, whereas the Chancellor forecasts growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent., and it expects the Chancellor to be forced to raise £10 billion a year more in tax until 2006.
	This is the first year for 20 years in which real household disposable incomes will fall. Indeed, the UK's growth potential and the UK's productivity growth potential are both declining, with the transfer of resources to the public sector, where productivity growth is now negative.
	Extra public sector spending is not delivering extra output. At least the Office for National Statistics now measures real output, not just increases in public sector employees. The 2002 ONS figures showed inflation in the public sector rising to more than 5 per cent., and on a rising trend. The ONS figures for the last quarter of last year—the latest available—showed public spending up 9.2 per cent., but net public sector output up only 0.2 per cent. Last year, a 22 per cent. increase in health spending produced only a 1.6 per cent. increase in hospital cases treated. Indeed, public sector inflation is running at nearly twice the Government's targeted figure.
	The Government's spin on the Finance Bill and the Budget was that they would build a stronger and more flexible enterprise economy. Ernst and Young's 2003 survey revealed that entrepreneurs' view of the Government and Whitehall is at rock bottom. Since 1997, there has been a continuing run-down—a managed decline—in the UK economy's growth and productivity growth.

John Bercow: Once again, my hon. Friend pertinently highlights the disparity between increased investment in public services and the failure to achieve a commensurate rise in activity. Given that the responsibility for public service delivery ultimately rests with the Treasury, does he agree that it is a matter of very considerable concern that the Chief Secretary, when challenged to identify the structural reforms that will improve service delivery, was singularly unable, for the second time in succession, to do so?

Howard Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am not sure whether the Chief Secretary even understood his question, but the Chief Secretary seems also to be remarkably complacent, as I commented earlier, about his commitment to reduce waste in public spending. All he can do is laugh about that, so it seems.

John Redwood: On that very point, can my hon. Friend tell me what advantages commuters from his part of the world have got from the £15 billion so far wasted by the Government on "Notwork" Rail? In my constituency, there has been no improvement whatsoever from Network or "Notwork" Rail, and it is £15 billion down the drain.

Howard Flight: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention. I am afraid to say that my constituents' trains either get cancelled or do not even stop. There is a desperate need for infrastructure investment on the Brighton line, for which the Strategic Rail Authority has no money. The lease that the SRA has granted to the operator is too short; as a result, the operator will not make the necessary investment. The service is declining dramatically, much to the fury of those who live in the area and commute to London.
	I asked a well-known economist, who has participated in the deliberations of the Bank of England, for an opinion on the Finance Bill. The comment that I received was that the micro-measures in the Finance Bill were typical of the economic distortions that third world economies pursue, of which it is the job of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to get rid. [Hon. Members: "Who was it?"] The Government sought accolades for a number of minor measures that will simply interfere with the economic process.
	The Finance Bill adds to the measures taken last year, together with the council tax stealth tax, to raise taxes this year by a staggering £26.5 billion—by 7.1 per cent., as set out in the Red Book. Last year, the tax increase was 1.9 per cent.—a mere £6.8 billion—so this year's tax increase is nearly four times last year's total. The major burden of the extra taxation will fall on individuals, £19 billion of which will come from increases in income tax and national insurance. Of that, £8.8 billion will come from income tax, which is 7.8 per cent. up, helped by the freezing of personal allowances, which are worth £700 million. Furthermore, we must bear in mind the wider knock-on effect, with nurses and policemen now finding themselves in the 40 per cent. tax bracket. The council tax stealth tax will raise £2 billion. Stamp duty is forecast to yield 4 per cent. more—up to nearly £8 billion—and it has doubled in the past three years. The national insurance yield is to increase by 16 per cent. to £10.2 billion, and the VAT yield will go up by 4.8 per cent. to £3 billion—the one positive measure, as most of that is forecast to come from getting rid of VAT fraud.

Kali Mountford: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the House to accept that people's increased earnings, and the commensurate increase in tax payments, is somehow undesirable?

Howard Flight: I am sure that those whose earnings have increased, particularly those in the public sector, where increases are running at twice the level of the private sector, will be very pleased with those increases. Of course, if people's earnings increase, their tax goes up. I am talking about a far greater increase, however: an increase in taxation four times the increase in the year that has just finished, and an increase of nearly 8 per cent. in the tax take in a single year. If the hon. Lady is not surprised by that, and is not worried by what might be the economic effects, I suggest that she spend a little more time looking through the Red Book to see where those effects will bite.
	Vehicle fuel and excise duty are to increase by £1.1 billion. That reflects a mixture of vehicle excise duty increasing by more than inflation, and the 38 per cent. increase in red diesel. Landfill tax revenue is to go up by 40 per cent., with rates rising to 14 per cent., 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. in the coming years.

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) referred to fiscal drag, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that two thirds of the tax increases cannot be attributed to fiscal drag but are caused by measures, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is pointing out from the Dispatch Box.

Howard Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. My point was that last year's tax increases were roughly in line with fiscal drag, whereas this year's increases are enormously higher.
	The Chancellor claimed virtue from the freeze on the rate of insurance premium tax, although it will yield a further £325 million this year. That is a windfall increase as a result of the massive ratcheting up of employers' liability insurance premiums. Chambers of commerce believe that the Government have missed the opportunity to use the windfall to relieve serious problems that they said they would address. Indeed, a review by the Department for Work and Pensions was due this spring, but it has so far failed to appear, and nothing in the Bill will address the problem. Clause 191 will merely block the use of protected cell companies to avoid the higher rate of insurance premium tax. A recent survey showed that as many as 210,000 small and medium-sized businesses operate without cover. I hope that in her winding-up speech the Paymaster General will say how the Government propose to address that serious problem.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman has produced a litany of so-called tax increases, although many of them lie outside the scope of the Budget. If he opposes the increases, his alternatives are either to allow borrowing to rise, which I assume he would condemn, or to cut public expenditure. Where would he make those cuts?

Howard Flight: For the third or fourth time, our criticism is about the failure to deliver. If delivery had succeeded, the financial arithmetic would look much better.
	I want to make a further point because the more one digs the more one finds little stealth taxes. The Inland Revenue is reversing a decision on changes to the corporation tax treatment of depreciation in stocks following a Hong Kong court case. That will lead to a further £25 million to £30 million bill for the Scottish spirits and distilling industry because corporation tax will effectively have to be paid at the time of production rather than the time of maturity.

George Osborne: In response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), surely it is true that a low-tax economy is also a buoyant economy with successful businesses, which causes tax revenue to flow to the Government.

Howard Flight: That is what makes an economy successful, and we need only compare the poor performance of continental Europe with the performance of the UK over the past 10 years for proof of that.
	The reality is that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in taxation since 1997. The tax take has risen from £270 billion per annum to £403 billion, which equates to £5,500 per household per annum. The rise has not been matched by anything like a similar improvement in the delivery of public services. Those who will be hurt most by the Chancellor's increased taxes will be the savers of today, who are the pensioners of tomorrow. The Government do not seem to be concerned that people who retire today will receive half the pension that they would have received in 1997, despite the fact they saved the same amount for the same time.
	The Labour Government are losing hearts and minds among British business. As Digby Jones said,
	"we are bearing witness to a continual erosion of our competitive position. If the Government wants a low-tax, flexible economy, we are not heading in the right direction."
	Last April the Chancellor predicted that he would have to borrow £13 billion this year, but we all know that that has more than doubled to £27 billion. Just two Budgets ago the Chancellor told the House that he would need to borrow £35 billion between 2002 and 2006. He has now admitted that that has increased to £98 billion. The deterioration in Britain's finances has been worse than that in the moribund EU economies. We are swinging from a 1.5 per cent. surplus to a 2.5 per cent. deficit; the eurozone average is moving from a 1 per cent. deficit to a 2.5 per deficit. The UK has also increased taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product by more than any other EU country since 1997.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Howard Flight: No.
	The reality is more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more promises, more failure, more excuses and no delivery. The Chancellor's micro-economic policies are taking Britain back whence it came, to high taxes, high public spending and third-rate public services.

Doug Henderson: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	As I believe that the Budget is right for the country, the Finance Bill must also be right for the country. It continues to give fiscal support to a stable economy, low unemployment and low inflation. Those targets cannot be met in our competitors' economies. France, Germany and the United States have higher unemployment and higher inflation. The stable policies that the Government set in motion six years ago are reinforced by the Bill and should be given the full support of the House.
	I must enter one caveat, however. I have reservations about the expenditure that the Bill raises for the war on Iraq. I consider that to be mistaken and misplaced. I would have preferred it to be spent on our hospitals and schools and in the Ministry of Defence so that it could provide better equipment and conditions to enable our forces to defend this country's interests when they are called on to do so. I know, however, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to go further down that road. Tempted as I am, I shall concentrate on other matters.
	I want to address the way in which the Bill and Government economic policy tackle regional economic and social inequality. Some of the Bill's direct measures make a good start on that. The size of the Bill has been commented on—it is pretty thick—and I am not claiming to have identified every golden nugget on regional assistance in its two volumes, but I draw hon. Members' attention to clauses 163 to 167, which will help regional development.
	Clause 163 extends capital allowances for small business. Clause 164 extends first-year allowances for information and communications technology expenditure by small companies. Clause 165 provides tax consideration for software sub-licensing and clause 166 extends first-year allowances for expenditure on environmentally beneficial plant or machinery. Clause 167 extends support for research and development.
	It could be argued that those things affect economic activities outside the regional development areas. Of course they do, but they also benefit economic activity in areas undergoing regional development. Relatively underdeveloped regions, such as my own in the north-east of England, are heavily dependent on companies that rely more on such measures than the average company. Manufacturing is a more important economic activity in the north-east than, for instance, along the M4 corridor, so such measures help us disproportionately. Two thirds of research and development assistance goes to the manufacturing sector, so the provision and the accompanying measures certainly help regional economies such as that in the north-east. Measures on stamp duty, including relief on stamp duty in the regeneration areas, again help some areas disproportionately. They help some deprived areas in London with the same economic problems as regions in the north of England, but help disproportionately areas in my city of Newcastle, as well as Liverpool and other areas where there is an incentive to provide such assistance.
	Accompanying the fiscal measures in the Bill was the Chancellor's announcement that about 20,000 civil services should be dispersed from areas of congestion to areas of relative underdevelopment, which I very much support. I should have liked more direct measures in the Bill to reinforce that announcement, as I know what sometimes happens with Government announcements, especially when they involve civil servants. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will keep his eye on other opportunities to reinforce the announcement with fiscal measures. I do not think that the proposal will work if it rests purely on the stick of Westminster—we need a carrot for the development regions as well. Local authorities, private developers and regional development agencies need incentives to persuade central Government that X number of additional civil servants should be based within their territories. My right hon. Friend may well consider tabling an amendment in Committee to achieve that and reinforce the Chancellor's desire to accomplish change.
	The core of my contribution concerns the need for such a change. There have been regional development policies in this country for well over 70 years, dating from the Macmillan committee of inquiry and what flowed from that in, I think, 1933 with a measure on special areas. Measures continued to be introduced in the late 1940s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, and included schemes for grants, loans, regeneration areas and development areas. There is no doubt that all those measures have had some effect. Employment in Wallsend would be very much depleted without the DSS or, as it is now called, the Department for Work and Pensions, which is located at Longbenton, where 3,000 or 4,000 people are employed.
	Many regional economic development policies have been successful to some extent. I do not believe that the Government can do everything, but what has been more effective than many measures has been the dispersal of Government activity to the regions. Governments drawn from Conservative and Labour parties have accepted the arguments for that. The Labour Government of the 1960s began the process of dispersal, which also took place in the private sector. There were incentives for private companies to move out of London, and penalties for those that expanded in certain employment areas in London. The Heath Government of the early 1970s and, indeed, the Thatcher Government of 1979 accepted the arguments for the dispersal of a number of civil service sites, with the Thatcher Government implementing measures to achieve that in 1980 and 1981. There has therefore been cross-party support for the economic arguments for dispersal.
	Some people would say that none of that works because if it is not economic engineering, it is social engineering. In fact, it is neither. The Bill and the Chancellor's statement—I hope that future Bills will contain further fiscal support—are a catalyst to market forces.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that manufacturers are moving out of my area of Croydon to lower cost areas in the north. Will he support the Chancellor's strategy of flexible labour markets on a regional basis, both in the public and private sectors, in order to achieve full employment, as I do?

Doug Henderson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the Government cannot do everything. Private sector initiative and investment is equally important. Companies making such decisions should have the Government's full support.
	I think that all will accept that the south of England is overcongested. It is probably the most overcongested area in Europe. It is certainly as overcongested as anything in the United States, save perhaps the Los Angeles area. All the economic diseconomies flow from that. People do not have the same quality of life. Leisure pursuits cost more in the south than in the north. Housing is so overpriced that many public sector, and indeed private sector, employers, especially in central London, cannot attract the staff that they would be able to elsewhere. Staff turnover is extremely high in various economic activities, especially in London and some other areas in the south-east. I remember from my period at the Ministry of Defence how difficult it was to obtain certain categories of staff, and once they were obtained they left quickly for better opportunities elsewhere. Many other Departments will have similar difficulties.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that there is an urgent need for a review of London weighting for public servants, particularly as in the private sector there is an average mark up of about 40 per cent. in London? If we are to recruit enough public servants, such as nurses and teachers, we need a proper balance that reflects the supply and demand and costs in different regions.

Doug Henderson: I am not sure that I totally agree with my hon. Friend on that. A strong economic argument could be made that the public expenditure that would be involved in that would be better spent on attracting staff to the regions. A little more research on that is necessary.
	Transferring civil servants directly creates jobs in areas such as the north-east. About two thirds of staff in a typical Department do not move when the Department moves, so the Department has to recruit locally in the regions. It can usually obtain a good supply of labour and skill programmes can be put in place before dispersal. Most employers would accept that the quality of labour is certainly as high in the regions as in London and the south-east, and arguably better.
	This issue addresses the staff shortages that become a critical problem when the country is in full employment, as we essentially are or very near it at the moment. But the dispersal of Departments has other benefits. The most obvious benefit is that it boosts the local economy. If 3,000 people are working at Longbenton in Wallsend, the money that they spend largely benefits the economy in Longbenton rather than the economy in an already overcongested central London. It makes the task of whoever is responsible for macro-economic policy easier in the future because they will not have to take measures to take the steam out of an economy to the same extent in the south, which is often damaging to some of the economic situations in the north, in places such as Newcastle.
	There are other efficiencies to be made. Land is clearly much cheaper and often of a higher quality, allowing staff to move into a better location.
	Organisational improvements can also increase efficiency. An interesting study was conducted in 1990, when social security benefit centres were dispersed from central London locations to Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan. The centres had been spread over 21 locations in central London because of accommodation difficulties, but moving them to three locations clearly improved efficiency.
	The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have a difficult task ahead of them. It will not be easy to persuade civil service departments or civil servants to move from the south to the north. Sir Humphreys will not always prefer Sevenoaks to Sunderland, but I think that they will generally do so. Of course, scope for such dispersal does not exist in all civil service departments. There is a perception throughout the country that armies of civil servants work in London, but about 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. of them work in their current locations because they are dealing with a population-related activity. The staff of the Department for Work and Pensions certainly need to work on that basis, and the Inland Revenue claims that the same is true of its employees. There is certainly some validity in the assertion that Inland Revenue advice has to be available where people need to seek it. Together, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue account for about 35 per cent. of civil service employment, and I do not think that they will have great scope for much more dispersal.
	One must therefore consider which parts of the civil service can be dispersed in line with the proposed policy, which I hope will receive broad support in the House. I have identified five areas in which I think that such dispersal is possible. The Home Office currently employs 12,000 of its 17,000 staff in England and Wales in London and the south-east; the Lord Chancellor's Department employs 5,500 out of 10,000 staff in London and the south-east; and the Department for Transport employs 5,000 out of 10,000 staff in London and the south-east. Customs and Excise employs 9,500 out of 21,000 staff in the United Kingdom in London and south-east.
	The main candidate for dispersal, however, may be the Ministry of Defence, which employs 90,000 people. Scotland and Wales get a proportionate share of that employment, but other areas do not. In the Ministry of Defence, 26,000 staff out of 67,000 in England and Wales are located in London and the south-east. That excludes the south-west, where about 20 per cent. of its staff are located—and some of the locations involved are pretty near London and the south-east. However, these are the telling statistics: only 470 Ministry of Defence civil servants are located in the north-east; only 2,000 are located in the north-west; and only 750 are located on Merseyside.
	A similar pattern emerges in the armed forces. There are about 200,000 members of the armed forces in this country. Only about three quarters of armed forces personnel are based in the United Kingdom, while others are based in Germany and so on. Some 20.9 per cent. of those based in the United Kingdom are located in the south-west; 29.2 per cent. are located in the south-east; and 11 per cent. are located in the east of the country, which is generally a prosperous area. That compares with the following: 0.8 per cent. of personnel are located in north-east England and 0.9 per cent. are located in the north-west.
	The Ministry of Defence used to argue that its staff had to be based near the armed forces because of strategic considerations. I do not think that that is now a valid assumption, because of new technology and all the rest of it. There is not even very much of an argument for the strategic location of the majority of our armed forces in the south-west, the south-east and London. They now tend to be deployed overseas. If somebody is travelling to Bosnia or Iraq, it does not make any difference whether they fly out of Newcastle or Newquay. The time difference to Iraq, or to wherever one is going, is more or less negligible. Defending the cliffs of Dover is no longer a priority in the sense that it was in 1945, when people had to be located near to the part of the country where there was a danger to our national security. Nowadays, the mobility of the armed forces means that few of those arguments apply. There is a strong argument for persuading the Ministry of Defence to devolve the location not only of forces personnel, but of civilian personnel. It will be extremely difficult for the Chancellor to meet his targets if he does not take on that reallocation as part of the task that he faces.
	There is a strong case for tackling regional inequality at this time of relatively high employment and over-congestion in the south-east, because those characteristics do not apply in my region, the north-east, and the same is true in the north-west and on Merseyside. That makes not only social sense, but economic sense. The task is to identify and prioritise appropriate Departments; that means facing up to the opposition of certain vested interests. I do not believe that staff in the civil service are a vested opposition: they can be persuaded to co-operate by policies of incentive that give them a better deal in the north than they would get in the south. The measure in the Chancellor's statement is sound in terms of policy design. I hope that the Government will make it a reality and that the House will support them in doing so.

David Laws: It would be difficult to pretend that we are discussing one of the great Budgets of the past 10 or 20 years. Despite the amount of time that we have taken in doing so, the truth is that most economists and independent commentators will consider it one of the thinner Budgets of the period, at least in terms of its policy content and the effect that it will have on particular groups in society. Indeed, among the evidence that was given to the Treasury Committee, John Whiting of PricewaterhouseCoopers said, when asked who were the notable winners from the Budget, that he could think only of
	"young couples, with a new child on the way, non-smoking, whisky drinking, with a grandmother over the age of 80 who plays a lot of bingo."
	That is verified by the serious figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the effects on particular income groups. The Budget has not had the substantive effect on income distribution of even the last few of the Chancellor's Budgets.

Howard Flight: Even those in the category that the hon. Gentleman describes will be disappointed, because the new bingo taxation is not what it appears to be. There is a hidden stealth tax in that both the bingo tax and VAT are payable.

David Laws: The shadow Chief Secretary is right to note that a measure that the Chancellor sought to pass off as a tax reduction will be significantly amended or neutralised when the new taxation for all forms of gambling is introduced.
	Although this was a thin Budget in terms of its content, it was yet again a thick Budget in terms of the size of the Finance Bill and the amount of legislation and bureaucracy that it will lead to. Several hon. Members alluded to the fact that this is the fourth-largest Finance Bill on record, with 447 pages. Perhaps less noted is the fact that the Red Book that accompanies the Budget has also swollen to its largest-ever size, with 293 pages, compared with 250 in 2002 and 225 in 2001. The fear must be that, in spite of the Budget's rather insubstantial measures, we need again to remind the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers of the need to try to simplify the tax system to reduce the amount of bureaucracy for firms and for individuals, and not to seek to micro-manage the tax system and other parts of the national finances in ways that usually do not work but serve simply to introduce incentives that are economically inefficient.

John Bercow: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's previous point. Does he agree that it is incongruous and reflects the lack of joined-up thinking in Government that the Paymaster General will wind up tonight's debate? She will celebrate a lengthy and complicated measure, although she commended to hon. Members the tax law rewrite project and the ostensible benefit of simplification that it would confer.

David Laws: I agree. Ministers tend to speak the language of simplification and reduction of bureaucracy and complexity, but it is difficult to find where that has been achieved here or in preceding Finance Bills.
	Before examining specific clauses and major provisions that we will debate in Committee in the next few weeks, I should like briefly to consider the Budget's macro-economic context, especially as it is traditional at this stage of our deliberations to refer to the hearings of the Treasury Committee on the Budget. It is usual to consider the high-quality report that the Committee compiles over time. Last year, the report to which we contributed was widely commented on. It is a pity that, this year, we do not have the Committee's final report to consider alongside the Bill. The reason for that must be the time constraints that this year's late Budget placed on the Committee and its overlap with the parliamentary recess.
	The Treasury should accept the Select Committee's recent recommendation that Budget statements should be programmed and timetabled not days and weeks but months beforehand. In a fiscal framework that the Government claim is about transparency and honesty, there is no good reason for the Chancellor to pick Budget dates out of thin air and shift them backwards and forwards, as happened this year, without bothering to provide an explanation.
	It is fortunate that we have the evidence from this year's Treasury Committee hearings, which shed much light on the macro-economic if not the tax issues that we must debate, and that are central to the Chancellor's Budget statement. We also have some interesting exchanges between the Chancellor and Labour Members on foundation hospitals. You would not want me to stray on to that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, given that it will be debated later this week. Nevertheless, they shed some interesting light on the divisions in the governing party on public services.
	I congratulate the Treasury Committee on its comprehensive job of examining the macro-economic background to the Budget and the Bill. It sets the context for the changes in the tax rates. As the Treasury Committee has accurately identified, the context is the forecast increases in public sector borrowing, which the Budget included this year and the pre-Budget report and the Budget contained last year.
	The forecast for net borrowing in the current fiscal year has been revised up from some £10 billion in the 2001 Budget to £27 billion in this year's Budget. We can tell that the Government are getting nervous about that, because the Red Book used to include the table that compares borrowing in successive Budgets on page 5 or 6, and it was labelled table 1.1, but this year it has been demoted to page 246. I suspect that that is no accident. Watching the tables that are given priority in the Red Book is rather like watching old pictures of those who stood on the Politburo platform during parades. One could tell who was in and who was out by their distance from the Soviet leader. We can tell which measures are in or out, and which ones the Government are more or less embarrassed about, by their position in the Red Book—or, in some years, by whether they appear at all.

Kali Mountford: rose—

David Laws: I would be delighted to give way to my former colleague on the Select Committee.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House by giving the page on which those charts on borrowing appeared under the Tory Administration, given that, even with the rising borrowing that we have now, their borrowing exceeded Labour borrowing? Where does he think that such charts would appear under any prospective Liberal proposals? Would they be on page 1?

David Laws: I am certainly not going to account for the Budget documents produced by the Conservative party when it was in power. They were considerably shorter than the current ones, although I acknowledge that they did not always contain all the information that they should have. The hon. Lady will have to wait for the imminent arrival of the Liberal Democrat Government to see where we place such tables, but I can assure her that they will be right up there near the front of the Red Book, and not on page 246.

Michael Jack: In one of the two Red Books that bears my signature, the answer to the question about where the borrowing figures appeared is page 7. In those days, the document was only 160 pages long.

David Laws: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that insight. He might also take the credit for the fact that the Red Books were considerably cheaper in those days, although public borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product was then considerably higher even than it is today.
	So far as framing the fiscal context for this Budget is concerned, the Treasury Committee looked at a number of major macro-economic issues. The first was the growth forecasts that the Chancellor has adopted. We have already discussed that in some detail in the previous Budget debate, but it is still noteworthy that the growth forecasts that he has chosen to make, particularly for 2004, are considerably in excess of those made by independent commentators. He appears to be taking a punt either on a continuing strong performance by the consumer sector—which might be unlikely given the slowdown in the housing market—or on a sudden expansion of exports.
	Her Majesty's Treasury seems to be basing its forecasts on those factors, and the Chancellor claimed, in front of the Select Committee, to be very optimistic that the forecasts will prove accurate. We shall find out when we return to this matter in the autumn and in next year's Budget whether he has adopted forecasts that are not only much rosier than those of most independent commentators but have proved to be inaccurate. If that is the case, it will lead to a further upward revision of the borrowing forecasts, which will undoubtedly cause the Government some problems as they come up to the next general election.
	Perhaps more seriously, even if the Chancellor is right in predicting that growth will be stronger than the average of independent forecasts, the main problem identified by the experts who gave evidence to the Treasury Committee this year relating to the structural financial position is that it would still be possible, in those circumstances, for the Government to have a significant problem with their projections for public borrowing, simply because they are assuming a recovery in certain taxation receipts that is way in excess of the amount that most independent commentators think likely.
	Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on 14 April. He said that his judgment
	"that taxes will be more likely to have to go up than not is based essentially on a structural view, and not on a view about growth."
	I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to comment on that, and to say how optimistic she is that some of the growth of revenue forecasts will be sustainable in practice, and in particular the forecast that corporation tax as a percentage of GDP will bounce back from the current level of some 2.5 per cent. to 2.9 per cent. next year, and then to 3.4 per cent. That forecast has been greeted with great scepticism by most independent commentators, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies believes that it is extremely optimistic.
	When we discuss the Budget each year, we inevitably look back on some of the experiences and mistakes of previous years. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was at the Treasury in 1990, at the time of Norman Lamont, but if he looks back at the Budget statement for that year, he will see Lord Lamont's optimism about borrowing going down again and the economy turning up again. Then, too, we were involved in a war with Iraq, and having a major debate about local authority taxes and our relationship with Europe. There are many similarities between then and now, and the Chancellor must hope that the Budget that we had a couple of weeks ago, which was not significant in terms of its substance, will not be significant when we look back on it in terms of his career and of the mistakes that he might have made through complacency about growth forecasts and about the revenue coming in.
	One of the interesting debates in the Treasury Committee this year was on whether and how we could introduce more transparency and credibility into the Budget process and the process of fiscal policy, so that they might stand alongside the monetary policy framework in the UK, which is now regarded by most independent commentators as very credible and a model of its kind. There was a discussion between the Chancellor and a number of members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)—who is obviously in the Chamber today—about whether there should be more independent scrutiny of the assumptions that the Chancellor makes in each Budget.
	While we give credit to the Chancellor for introducing some measure of scrutiny since Labour came to power in 1997, by involving the National Audit Office in scrutinising some assumptions in the Budget, it is clear that that does not go far enough. It is also entirely unsatisfactory that it is the Chancellor himself who determines which aspects of the Budget assumptions are to be audited. What serious auditing process in the private sector would tolerate a situation in which the entity that was being audited was able to point out which areas it wished to have audited, and to brush under the carpet or into the bottom drawer those sensitive or embarrassing assumptions that might prove unable to stand up to the audit process? I hope that, however difficult it is to do so, the Treasury will grasp the possibility raised in the Treasury Committee—and, I hope, in its report—of bringing in more independent scrutiny, possibly through the National Audit Office, of the Budget assumptions. Although that might lead to some uncomfortable decisions and conclusions in the short term, it should improve fiscal credibility and performance in the longer term.
	Before I move on to the major clauses in the Bill, and to consider in outline some of the big issues that we shall examine in Committee, I want to touch on some of the issues that the Chancellor covered in the Budget, in the hope that the Financial Secretary might be able to shed some light on the concerns that have arisen since then. One such concern was raised by the shadow Chief Secretary and relates to the major issue of the child trust fund, for which children who were born in or after September 2002 will qualify. It seems possible that we shall not find out what the rules and regulations for the trust fund are until later this year, or possibly even until 2004 or 2005.
	Given the very thin Budget that the Government have produced this year, one can understand their wishing to rush the announcement of the trust fund out for publicity purposes. Is there not, however, a real danger that many people will wonder why they have announced such a proposal without thinking it through? What mechanisms will there be to compensate those individuals who, in theory, have a child trust fund that started in September 2002, but whose parents will not have the ability to invest that money until such time as the Government make a decision. Will the Minister confirm that there will be some form of compensation for those affected, between the setting up of the child trust fund in September 2002 and the time when the Government put some flesh on the bones of this proposal?
	The Chancellor made an announcement about pensions for those who remain in hospital for more than a set number of weeks. The impression given was that the measure would be effective from Budget day, which I think was 9 April. However, I am told by a constituent whose relative, sadly, is in hospital now and has been since January that the pension will continue to be deducted for the current time in hospital, at least until the end of May. Can the Financial Secretary tell me whether that is true, whether it is Treasury policy, and whether there will be compensation for such people dating back to Budget day?
	Will the Financial Secretary say a little more about the assumptions relating to higher council tax over the next two years—an increase of 13 per cent.? Why has the Treasury come up with such extraordinarily high projections? How can a Government who profess to be trying to make the tax system more progressive sign up to a rise in a local tax that hits many elderly people particularly hard, and takes some 7 per cent. of the income of the poorest decile compared with only 1.5 or 1.6 per cent. of that of the upper decile?
	Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us when the review of local government finance—which we understand is in the worrying hands, the unreliable hands, the somewhat shaky hands of the Deputy Prime Minister—will produce a report. Will the Treasury be directly involved, and does it take any view on whether the current means of financing local expenditure—through a very regressive tax—is satisfactory and should be continued?

John Redwood: During the local elections, Liberal Democrats in many parts of the country offered £100 off, signed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats for the time being. Is the hon. Gentleman tabling amendments to guarantee the £100 off, and how much extra income tax will a family have to pay to qualify for this apparent bonanza?

David Laws: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that was not hidden under the carpet. It was raised directly by the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman in a debate just a couple of weeks ago, and published as part of our alternative Budget proposals. I do not think there can be any doubt that this is our policy, and that it is clearly on record. Of course there will be all the necessary follow-through to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the issue still further, and I hope we shall discover the Conservatives' position then.
	The shadow Chancellor is not here today. I suspect that he is nursing his bruises from the result of the elections in Shepway. I am afraid that when, a few weeks ago, he was asked by none other than The Daily Telegraph what he would do about the increase in council taxes this year, he said, "I do not know." At least the Liberal Democrats have a policy on the issue. It is disappointing that the Conservatives have yet to develop one.
	We shall have a good deal of time to debate the specific tax measures in the Budget in Committee, both on the Floor of the House next week and in Standing Committee subsequently, but I should like to touch on some today. One of the big issues that we shall need to debate this year is, I suspect, tobacco and alcohol duty, along with the implications of the differential between this country and the European Union in relation to smuggling. The Government have had to grapple with that issue, as is shown by this year's figures from the National Audit Office. It is clear that they have had to change their assumptions about the amount of tobacco revenue they will receive.
	For many years our party believed, especially in respect of tobacco taxation, that there was an argument for the escalator that has operated. We argued some time ago that the extra finances should be earmarked for the health service, and a number of years ago the Chancellor did that, at least in theory. In a single European market, however, it is increasingly difficult to construct barriers; attempts to do so have been overturned in the courts, as we saw last year in respect of limits on non-dutiable goods brought back from the continent. It is becoming harder to maintain the duty differentials. That is a consequence of the tax competition that I would welcome—in contrast to a deliberate attempt to harmonise taxes, which I think neither necessary nor desirable.
	According to the Government's own figures, even given their current measures to reduce tobacco and alcohol fraud and smuggling, some 20 per cent. of the tobacco market consists of smuggled tobacco. The figure is extraordinarily high for hand-rolled tobacco, which seems almost to constitute a majority of the tobacco consumed in this country. If we add that to legitimate cross-border shopping, we find that some 28 per cent. of tobacco consumed here—not far short of 30 per cent.—comes from the continent, with no duty paid.
	I do not think that the case for a reduction in tobacco duty has yet been made. It is clear that any resulting upturn in consumption would prompt significant health concerns—although such concerns must be moderated by the fact that a huge amount of consumption takes place already, at very low prices, because so much tobacco is smuggled. It is certainly time that the Treasury engaged in a serious debate in the House, and an analysis of the costs of persisting with the current large duty differentials. We should be able to discuss what gains could be made if those differentials were reduced, at least to an extent that might make smuggling less attractive. I hope that those in all parts of the House would engage in that debate, not least because the Treasury—stuffed full of economists as it obviously is—should be sceptical about any system that, in a single market, involves two such different tax rates, creating huge incentives for smuggling.
	Perhaps we can learn something from other continental countries, as the Conservative party has allegedly tried to do. Perhaps we should be learning something about the deliberation that is under way in EU countries, including Denmark, which I understand voted for a fair-sized reduction in tobacco duties to become effective later this year. I hope we shall table amendments in order to elicit a debate, and to encourage more consideration of the costs and potential benefits of such a policy change.

Kali Mountford: When considering cost implications, we should take account of parts of Europe where there is far more cirrhosis of the liver and lung cancer than there is in this country. We should consider treatment costs, and the human cost. We cannot discuss only the differential between duty rates in the debate that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

David Laws: Those are precisely the issues that need to be considered, but if the hon. Lady looks at figures comparing duty rates across Europe with the amount of illness caused by alcohol and tobacco she will find that there is far from a one-to-one relationship. Alcohol abuse in particular seems to be related not just to price but to other social factors, which need to be considered.
	Since the days when our Treasury spokesman represented Gordon, in Scotland, it has been traditional to touch on issues relating to spirits. Such issues are relevant not just to cross-channel smuggling, but to some of the measures in this Bill and last year's that affect the Scotch whisky industry. The Financial Secretary probably knows of the industry's representations on changes in the corporation tax treatment of stock depreciation; if she does not, she may have to by the time the Bill is enacted. I understand that the treatment that was introduced last year will have a particularly damaging effect on this business. Stock has to be held until it can mature, before being passed on to the market and consumed. This could cost the industry up to £30 million.
	The next issue—it was raised by some of my colleagues in another place, and several hon. Members have touched on it today—is stamp duty land tax and relief on commercial property in deprived areas. As usual with most of the Chancellor's well-motivated measures, it sounds like a good idea. However, the issue that we need to debate in Committee is its practical impact: whether it will have the beneficial effects that the Chancellor claims, and whether the cost that he anticipates—some £90 million—will prove realistic. As my colleagues in another place have shown, the 2,000 most deprived wards contain not only residents and businesses that are experiencing great deprivation and pressure on profits but large regional shopping centres such as Lakeside, and big property developments such as Canary Wharf; indeed, the latter is in one of the 50 most deprived wards. I wonder whether the fact that such developments and their owners may benefit from this measure is entirely in line with the Treasury's desires, and whether the resulting economic effects will match the Treasury's wishes in all cases.
	Who will monitor the cost of this measure and assess its benefits? This House has discussed many times the film tax relief that the Chancellor introduced to much fanfare several Budgets ago. It was supposed to cost in the region of £15 million to £20 million, but it had to be curtailed severely one or two Budgets later, when it was discovered that it threatened to cost a couple of hundred million pounds, because individual episodes of "Crossroads", "Emmerdale" and other programmes were being reclassified as films. The fear exists that other such well-intentioned measures may have precisely that effect.
	The final issue relating specifically to the clauses is VAT fraud. Abuse and avoidance of the tax system is clearly a major problem, particularly in respect of missing trader VAT fraud, which continues to cost the Government billions of pounds. As the shadow Chief Secretary has said, it is of course right that we seek to close such loopholes. However, I understand that clause 18, on
	"joint and several liability for unpaid VAT of another trader",
	will allow the Treasury to take action against suppliers and recipients of certain specified commodities, even in cases where they are potentially innocent parties. In the explanatory notes, the Government say that they will take steps to ensure that innocent businesses are not caught up in these new measures, and I hope that the Financial Secretary can say a little more today to reassure us that businesses that are trading perfectly legally and legitimately should have nothing to fear from them.
	This was a very thin Budget in terms of substance, but a fat one in terms of the new regulations and complications that it introduced. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, it was a "hope for the best" Budget—a crossed-fingers Budget—the results of which will not be seen until later on this year and next. I fear that the Chancellor will have to return to the House to revise up his Budget forecasts yet again. He has got away with excuses for a long time because of the strength of the consumer sector—a temporary boom in the housing and retail markets, which now seems to be coming to an end. I suspect that we will look back on the Budget of 2003 as a significant one not because of what was in it but because it may mark a turning point in the Chancellor's and the Government's reputation for economic management.

Nigel Beard: It is a major achievement of this Budget that an unprecedented programme of investment in our public services has been maintained, despite Britain's being in the trough of the economic cycle, and despite a synchronised world recession. The Government's economic strategy has been stress-tested at home and abroad in the past year and has come through unscathed.
	The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised the issue of increased borrowing, and during this financial year borrowing will indeed stand at £27 billion, compared with a budget surplus two years ago. But public borrowing when the economy is in the recessionary phase of the economic cycle is part of the strategy, subject to two conditions; first, that borrowing can be paid off as the economy expands again; and secondly, that the total interest to be paid on public debt is not so large as to be unsustainable. Those are the Chancellor's two fiscal rules. They have been met, and they will be met in years to come.
	By reducing debt two or three years ago, when the economy was at a peak and taxes were rolling in, the ground was prepared for safe borrowing in the trough of the economic cycle, when it would prevent the economy from sinking into recession. The Opposition may not be familiar with that basic concept—it is called foresight. We should contrast that with the Conservatives' strategy over 18 years. When times were good and taxes came rolling in, they gave tax relief to the better-off. That money was spent, the economy overheated and it promptly went bust. In the following recession, when taxes no longer covered public spending, the Conservatives cut public spending and deepened recession. Thus did they convert the undulation of the economic cycle into the big-dipper ride of boom and bust that we must never forget.

George Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman opposes the income tax cuts made by Conservative Governments in the 1980s and 1990s, would he like the level of income tax to be raised?

Nigel Beard: As the hon. Gentleman heard me say, I was opposed to the process of balancing the budget in the trough of the cycle by cutting public spending because that deepens recession. That is exactly what the Governments of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion did, creating two very severe busts during that period, and that is what they will be ever remembered for.
	Today, the Conservatives' strategy is to cut public spending by 20 per cent. whatever the circumstances, so they probably have changed. They are not quite like the Bourbons, who learned nothing and forgot nothing; by the sound of it, they would abolish the boom so that the economy would be permanently bust. The Government's economic strategy—

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable guy—we serve on a Select Committee together—so, in his heart of hearts, does he really believe that the Conservative party has ever advocated 20 per cent. cuts in public spending? Does he not think it possible—indeed, probably likely—that the interpretation placed on those remarks by the shadow Chief Secretary today is accurate?

Nigel Beard: No—the shadow Chancellor has endorsed those figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are preposterous, but I have heard no adequate refutation of them. Nor have I heard—this is the issue that I am getting at—how they fit into any rational macro-economic strategy, but perhaps all will be revealed when the hon. Gentleman speaks.
	We on the Labour Benches must not let the intellectual incoherence of the Opposition lull us into any complacency. Harold Wilson's Government of the 1960s was blown off-course by international financial speculation, and the Callaghan Government of the 1970s had to trim policy to accommodate the International Monetary Fund. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) grins too widely, I should point out that in the 1980s, the pound almost reached parity with the dollar, destroying a swathe of manufacturing industry in the process. And of course, we should not forget Black Wednesday, in 1992, from which the Conservative party may never recover.

Howard Flight: Surely the fall of sterling to near parity with the dollar was encouraging, not discouraging, for the economy. It was the brief rise of the dollar to $2.48 against the pound in the early 1980s that caused the problem.

Nigel Beard: I doubt whether the people who had to join the pool of the unemployed enjoyed their bathe. Great structural damage was done to the UK economy and much of our manufacturing industry was wiped out in that period. The hon. Gentleman is certainly wearing rose-tinted spectacles in assessing that period.
	Among the developed countries, Britain's economic health is uniquely affected by the ebb and flow of international trade and the maverick forces of international finance. We are coming through the most recent downturn in international trade very well, but it would be foolish to believe that, on that basis, we could be permanently unaffected by international economic conditions.
	In economic and monetary union, we have the prospect of reducing the effects of the international economic weather on Britain. Conversely, if we are not in the euro, there is a danger of the economic weather becoming much rougher—and very rough indeed—as Britain sits between the euro and the dollar.
	The Treasury Select Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, recently published an all-party report on the UK and the euro—

Andrew Love: All-party?

Nigel Beard: Indeed. It is in the nature of such a report that it sets out the issues to be taken into account rather than drawing a conclusion. Nevertheless, the wealth of evidence accumulated over recent months gives a strong lead on the answers to the five tests that the Treasury wants satisfied before recommending that Britain should join the economic and monetary union.
	The first test asks whether the UK economy has converged with those of the eurozone. Essentially, it has converged, though for Germany special problems arose from reunification when 20 million people living in a derelict economic infrastructure were added to a population of 60 million. For Britain, however, any further adjustment after joining the euro would be far less difficult than it was for present EMU members after they joined—and none of them experienced unmanageable problems.
	There may be claims that the decision should be delayed until economists have drilled further and further down into the detail, but it is doubtful whether that would add anything to the assessment of the salient issues. We would end up better informed, but none the wiser. That road leads too easily to analysis paralysis, because there is always another beguiling bit of research that could be done before taking a decision. The judgment required now is whether the present degree of convergence is sufficient, which is a political rather than an economic question.
	Flexibility is the second test—it is necessary so that the economy can absorb any shocks without damage. It is clear that the UK economy is the most flexible in the European Union and so the most capable of absorbing shocks and minimising economic damage.
	Would joining EMU create the conditions for firms to make long-term investments in Britain? That is the third test. Overwhelmingly, major companies such as Alsthom, Siemens, Nissan and Unilever, which have given evidence to the Select Committee, have answered yes. The only doubtful companies are those whose business is unaffected by the exchange rate. All the major companies that we heard from say that, if Britain remains outside the eurozone, they will reduce investment in Britain in favour of the continent. The reason is that they want to avoid fluctuations in the pound-euro exchange rate. When avoiding exchange rate risk is so manifestly in their business interest, it is dangerous to assume that those companies do not mean what they say.
	If manufacturing in Britain is to have the confidence to innovate, invest and improve productivity, it needs a lower exchange rate than has prevailed for the last six years. The rise in the value of the euro in the last two years now gives a real prospect of negotiating an entry rate that is equitable to manufacturers in the United Kingdom and to those in the eurozone.
	Financial services and the City, whose competitive position constitutes the fourth test, have consistently told the Select Committee that they can operate internationally with ease whether or not Britain joins the euro. They are therefore neutral on the question.
	The fifth test asks whether joining EMU will promote growth, stability and jobs. It relates to a central point of the Budget and Finance Bill—measures to improve Britain's productivity. Productivity is to a healthy economy what fitness is to a healthy athlete. Strategy will not compensate for an athlete who is unfit, nor will it compensate for an economy that is weak on productivity. Strategy can ensure that the full potential is reached, but fitness and productivity determine how good that potential really is.
	The Chancellor has mastered macro-economic strategy, but UK productivity is still substantially poorer than that of the USA, France and Germany. The continued evolution of the Chancellor's strategy of economic strength, public service investment and social justice beyond the next five years depends on improving the productivity of the United Kingdom. Micro-economic measures to improve productivity are useful, but to have a major lasting effect we need to change the economic climate within which British business operates. For that, it is essential that the United Kingdom joins EMU.
	If the Government's conclusion were to be "not yet", they must face the question "if not now, when?" Waiting could mean losing opportunities to establish a leading position in an expanding European Union and to influence the way in which the operations of the European Central Bank and the stability and growth pact are reshaped. Those changes are widely recognised as necessary by other members of the European Union, but Britain can influence them only from inside the eurozone. The technicalities are certainly not reason enough to stay outside the eurozone.
	The decision depends on comparing Britain in EMU, not with Britain today, but with Britain outside EMU in a rapidly evolving world. There will never be any certainties. If we wait in vain for certainties, opportunities for Britain could move out of reach. The evidence examined by the Treasury Select Committee provides no justification for leaving Britain in that limbo.

John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
	This debate is about the biggest tax bill in history ever presented to Parliament and the British people. The Government have the audacity to bring before us today a claim for an extra £26 billion of taxation this year in comparison with last year. They have the audacity to field the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made a speech as if he were presenting a tax-cutting Budget by highlighting two or three morsels from a table that had otherwise been denuded of good dishes, for which a huge bill had been sent to the starving diners in the private sector. The Government have perfected the art of rip-off government and found 100 new ways to pillage the purses, tills and wallets of the nation, but still found it impossible to hire the teachers necessary to secure the improvements in schools, and the nurses and doctors necessary to get operations done, that we all so desperately want.
	The background to the debate is a teaching profession in uproar and against the Government. I had always thought that many teachers were sympathetic to the Labour and Liberal Democrat view. It is fascinating to see that Ministers are now unable to face a teachers' conference and unable to answer criticisms coming from the teaching profession. Ministers must know that they have bungled it and that so much of the extra £26 billion that we are asked to approve in the Bill is going walkabout and being wasted. It has not gone to hospital operating theatres or classrooms where it is needed and could be better used.
	This mighty Bill includes so many tax increases that the Government wished the Opposition and others had not teased out. Most people have understood the massive hit on national insurance rates, which was heralded many months ago, but we are still to count the costs. The Government told us that the shadow Chancellor was wrong to dub it a tax on jobs. We will see, but I support my right hon. and learned Friend; it is undoubtedly a tax on jobs. It is a simple rule of economics—one that even this Government cannot duck—that if one increases the price of something, the quantities that can be bought decline. In this case, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of labour by a swingeing increase in employers' and employees' national insurance. The result will be job losses and fewer people employed.

Andrew Love: Exactly the same argument was used about the national minimum wage. We were told that it would increase costs, yet employment has increased since the introduction of the national minimum wage. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

John Redwood: The forecasts that I and others made about the national minimum wage were absolutely spot on. We said that it would have a particularly damaging impact on low-paid work in manufacturing, the sector most likely to be exposed to its impact. It was in that sector where the world market was highly competitive and where there were some people on too little money in terms of the income paid by their employer who were then exposed by the national minimum wage to job loss. We recommended not that we should leave people with inadequate sums of money for their family needs, but that we should carry on with the benefits top-up system for those in work so that jobs would not be destroyed and families had a reasonable income to live on.
	The Government decided that they knew better. As a result, under this Government, there have been 600,000 job losses in manufacturing industry. It is a disgrace. The Chief Secretary regaled the House with a story, he said, of economic success. He did not mention the tragedy of manufacturing. He told the House that the Government had not yet presided over a recession. He failed to tell the House that the Government have already presided over three manufacturing recessions; boom and bust, boom and bust and now bust and bust for manufacturing. We cannot see how manufacturing can be lifted out of the mire and the gloom. Day after day, we see factory closures and job losses, statements from companies that cannot pay the bills and the transfer of massive numbers of jobs to cheaper labour markets.

Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in terms of textiles and steel, where there has been a definite slow-down, but does he really want to compare that with any period of Tory government, when it was not a question of thousands of jobs going, but millions? For example, the city of Sheffield faced almost total collapse and in one year lost more jobs than the coal industry did under the Conservative Administration. Textiles fell into almost complete disarray under his Government. Would he really like to compare the records?

John Redwood: It is not our task to compare the records of Governments, but if the hon. Lady wishes to draw me in that direction she would be right to say that there was one short but unpleasant period under the Conservatives, when too many jobs were lost. Let me remind the House why that was; it was because the Conservative Government foolishly accepted the advice of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to join the exchange rate mechanism. It was because we did what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) now wants us to do on an heroic scale: join the euro. We joined a European exchange rate project, and we were told by all and sundry—including the Labour party—that it would be good for jobs and would get rid of exchange rate unpredictability. It was, of course, a disaster. The euro would be a disaster that we could never get out of.

Nigel Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the ERM was a disaster, first, because the Government went in at far too high a rate; secondly, because they had not negotiated with colleagues in the ERM, so when difficult times came, they were not ready to bail the Government out; and, thirdly, because the ERM left cracks into which speculators could get, as happened on Black Wednesday?

John Redwood: The whole thing was negotiated with partners and was welcomed broadly by the Labour Opposition at the time. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the rate at which we went in is very similar to the rate now. He says that he wants us to go in to the euro now, so I presume that he wants us to go in at the same rate. Why is the rate that was clearly wrong and a disaster then now miraculously right? There is no right rate for the pound in perpetuity against the European currencies. Our economies are very different.
	I give one piece of praise to the British economy under Labour, as well as under the Conservatives. It is great news that we run our economy with such a lower rate of unemployment than that of France or Germany. The last thing I want to see my country do as a result of this Budget and a move to the euro, as recommended by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, is to converge with the continent by creating the joblessness and the job destruction machine in place there. How do the Europeans do that? They do it by combining the wrong interest rate, through a rigid single currency scheme, the wrong monetary policy and very high taxation.
	The burden of my criticism of the Bill and of the Government's policy is that this rip-off Government are proposing taxation that will be extremely damaging to British individuals and business. It is part of the process by which they would erode the most important competitive advantage that this country and our economy have built up—under several years of Conservative government and the first couple of years of Labour government—by keeping taxes well below those on the continent and staying well clear of monetary union, which would be a bodge and a mess on an heroic scale; a scale that would make the ERM look like a rather pleasant interlude in our economic affairs.
	In his rose-tinted survey, the Chief Secretary—ignoring all the realities facing business and hard-pressed British families—failed to mention the way in which high taxation imposed by the Government in recent years has demolished the telecoms and internet industry by taking £22 billion out of it through the auction of licences. That procedure took money out of the industry at the very point it needed to expand and make new investment. It destroyed jobs, investment and success and helped the stock market to crash.
	The Chief Secretary made no reference to the £5 billion a year sandbagging of British pension funds, which has led directly to part of the stock market crash; it is one of the reasons why the stock market has fallen further here than in the United States. It led directly to those funds being chronically short of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, it is a disgrace that many people now face the prospect of retiring on about half the pension they were looking forward to in 1997–98, before the tax on pension funds and before the stock market crash. That loss is a direct result of a Labour Government, who inherited the most successful pensions industry in Europe by far and thought that they could use it as a ready source of money without people noticing. If we wanted any proof that stealth taxes do enormous damage and end up costing the country rather more than they gain in extra revenue, surely it is the pension funds. It will now be extremely difficult to meet all the bills and make good the deficits and trouble created by that hated tax.

Andrew Love: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition by the previous Government of employers' contribution holidays from pension schemes was a major contributory factor in the so-called halving of pensioners' current incomes?

John Redwood: Of course not. It was not the previous Government who introduced them. Under pensions law approved by Parliament under Governments of both parties over the years, it was reasonable for a company with more money in its fund than it needed to meet its liabilities as assessed by an independent judge or actuary to reduce its contributions while the surplus lasted. Alternatively, a firm in that position could consider increasing benefits. It could also choose some combination of the two approaches. Many funds did a bit of both, to get rid of or reduce the surplus.
	There was no problem when this Government came to power. Funds were very solvent and they had the marvellous choice of increasing benefits or cutting contributions. They could also choose a combination of the two. It is under this Government that funds face the awful choice of cutting benefits or winding up the funds because they cannot find the money to pay the bills.

Nigel Beard: How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion? The tax introduced by the Chancellor at the beginning amounted to £5 billion a year or thereabouts, but the stock market has lost more than £100 billion in the past two years or so. Why is it the £5 billion that is having that dire effect, and not the fall of the stock market? In the contorted logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, how does he believe that this Government are responsible for the stock market falls around the world?

John Redwood: I specifically said that I was drawing attention to the extra fall in the London stock market, as compared with other stock markets. The hon. Gentleman greatly underestimates the extent of the total fall, but his figure of £100 billion is very fortunate for my argument, which he must want to support. That amount, £100 billion, is exactly the capital fall that one would expect from a tax on companies of £5 billion a year. When the tax was imposed, the stock market tended to value company earnings on a multiple of about 20. Multiplying the £5 billion taken away from companies each year by the multiple of 20 by which the stock market valued earnings, one arrives at exactly £100 billion.
	I made that point when the Chancellor wanted to impose the tax. I said that he should expect a fall of about £100 billion in the stock market, in addition to anything else that might happen elsewhere around the world. That is what happened. Much of that fall of £100 billion was directly due to the pension fund accounts. The Chancellor should have known that British pension funds have traditionally had between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of their investment in equities—for good reason, because they tended to do well. When the Chancellor sandbagged British business with taxation, it was bound to cause trouble.
	The Chief Secretary argued that British business should be grateful for the one or two very small tax reductions in the Budget, and in previous Budgets, but I find that extraordinary too. The CBI and other bodies—none of them well known supporters of the Conservative party—have come to their own independent conclusions. They believe that the Government have imposed a massive increase in the tax burden on businesses. That imposition was achieved by sleight of hand, through the pensions and telecoms taxes that I have mentioned, and above all by changing the timing and incidence of corporation tax payments. The Government were therefore able to claim that they had made a very small reduction in the rate, while at the same time collecting far more revenue because they had changed the cash flow impact on business, which is what matters. The Government had also removed quite a lot of money from business that firms needed to pay the wage bill and to continue investing in the future.
	I should have liked a different kind of Finance Bill, although I suppose that that was too much to hope for from this Government. Occasionally, Ministers say that they would like lower taxation to make us more competitive. They accept that lower tax rates can produce more revenue and attract more business, jobs, prosperity and investment. So why cannot the Government produce a Finance Bill of the kind that I would like, doing just what I have described? Why do they find all sorts of ways to clobber all the main interest groups in this country?
	This Bill continues the Government's hate campaign against the motorist. It further increases the charges on motorists. It is getting to the point where people need to be very rich if they want to drive around the country, because so many of the charges are imposed on people with relatively low incomes. The aim, presumably, is to tax them off the road to allow more space for the chauffeured cars of Ministers—who do not pay their own tax on such things.

Kali Mountford: That is silly.

John Redwood: The hon. Lady says that that is silly, but she may not realise that, for people who are not Ministers, it costs £5 a day to drive in the centre of London. That comes to £25 a week, which comes out of net income. People need large incomes to pay such bills.

Nigel Beard: Did the right hon. Gentleman have the use of a car when he was Minister?

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I had the use of a car when I was a Minister, and I can tell him that of course I did, but the Government whom I supported did not impose these very high charges on motorists. We did not try to tax people with low incomes off the road, as this Government are attempting to do.

David Laws: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Budget statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in the last Conservative Parliament? He announced that there would be charging on motorways. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that policy?

John Redwood: No such charges were introduced by the Conservative Government. I favour charges if a new motorway, an additional facility, is financed with private money. I see nothing wrong with the Birmingham northern relief road, which I think is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) had in mind. That was a Conservative scheme, for which I see this Government are going to take some credit, after a bit of delay. There is at least bipartisan support for the notion that a new facility that is privately financed should result in a charge for those who use it. However, I do not think that the same applies to roads that we have paid for already, many times over, through taxes. That could be justified only if all sorts of other changes were made that improved rather than worsened the motorist's lot.
	The Government have also decided to sandbag people who wish to buy properties. The stamp duty proposals are complicated and very expensive, but it ill behoves the Govt to tax people buying quite modest properties in London and parts of the south-east. It shows that they do not believe in fairness or justice around the country, as stamp duty has become a tax on anyone who needs to buy a property in the south-east and in London. As a result, many people—especially in central London—will have to pay the full 4 per cent. rate, given the very high level of house and flat prices, and the low level at which the highest rate applies. The Government should look again at the injustice around the country that their stamp duty taxes represent.
	What have the Government got against young people and families struggling to buy a property in London and the south-east? Why do the Government weep crocodile tears about the difficulties experienced by key public-sector workers trying to buy property in London and the south-east, when they are making those workers pay a stamp duty tax? Given the level of house prices over which the Government have presided, that tax is very high in some cases.
	According to the Chief Secretary, this Government claim to be very good at attracting inward investment. That was true of Governments for many years. It was true under the Conservative Administration of the 1990s, and of the first years of this Labour Administration, demonstrating that a country did not have to be in the euro, or seeking to join it, to attract inward investment. We were told many times, when the Conservative Government were in power, that, if Britain did not pledge entry to the euro, investment would flee or be driven away. That turned out not to be true. In the early days of the Labour Government, some people in business told us that investment would flee if they did not get on with joining the euro. However, investment kept flooding in.
	Britain was the preferred destination for investment for many years—at the end of the Conservative era and at the beginning of the Labour era. Now we can see a problem developing. The Chief Secretary did not refer to it, but the volume of inward investment is now lower than in the good years. Why should that be so? I think it would be surprising were it otherwise. The Government are taxing and regulating business away from this country. The process that I described in manufacturing is beginning to spread to services. Companies are not going to France or Germany to seek the euro. They are going to countries in eastern Europe or Asia, where they get more flexibility, and much lower labour costs.
	That is the serious threat to the British economy. Ministers would be well advised not to ignore it or bury their heads in the sand. They should understand the process, and should be seeking to reduce the tax burden on British business. In that way, we can return to being the premier location in western Europe to attract business, rather than pricing ourselves out of the market by stealth.
	In response to my requests for lower business and individual income taxes, the Labour Government will ask where the money to pay for public services will come from. The most disreputable part of the debate has been the consistent attempt by Labour spokesmen and Back Benchers in this House to claim that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and his boss, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), wish to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. across the board. They have never said that: it is clearly not Conservative policy; nobody believes that we would go to the electorate with such a policy; nobody believes that we would be elected on such a policy; and nobody believes a democratic Government would ever put through such a policy. It is complete nonsense.
	What my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has rightly said, as he explained again today, is that there are parts of government—not teachers, nurses, doctors, hospitals and important front-line services—where he, modestly, would like a fifth off the cost. I have said before, and will say again, that I should like to see more than that taken off my regional government: I would like 100 per cent. off my regional government.

Meg Munn: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend would want to cut 20 per cent. of waste or that he would, in reality, cut public services by 20 per cent., which is what we all believe.

John Redwood: There is no way that anyone in the Conservative party has ever said, or will ever stand on a platform and say, that they want one fifth off public expenditure across the board. That is complete nonsense. No one has said it, no one ever would, and I hope that we can move on from such trivia.
	On whether my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Down would like to cut one fifth off waste, I think that he would like to cut all waste, but he is starting off by saying one fifth of waste because he knows, from watching others, how difficult it will be to get rid of all the waste that this Government have created. Billions of pounds have been wasted under the Government, who have singularly failed to cut waste in benefit fiddles or the over-provision of civil servants. They have allowed the civil service to expand to 500,000 people; I should certainly be happy to see a fifth off the civil service. The civil service is not all waste, but a fifth off would be a good start.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for why the debate about 20 per cent. is entirely sterile. Does he agree that it is remarkable that although so much time in the House is spent bandying around the 20 per cent. figure, not one senior political journalist in this country believes that it is our policy to cut 20 per cent? They think that that is a complete joke put around by the Labour party.

John Redwood: I think that we should move on. I agree with my hon. Friend that that figure is not taken seriously outside the House, and the Government demean themselves by resorting to such statements.

Andrew Love: It is the easiest thing in the world to say that we will cut all waste. However, the only way in which anyone can validate such a statement is by looking back at previous experience. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee for three years, during which time it scrutinised the expenditure of the previous Government. I could go into examples of housing benefit, over-expenditure on the national insurance computer system and lots of other problems that arose in public expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say, on the basis of that experience, that the electorate could have any confidence that the Conservatives would be able to cut out waste?

John Redwood: Having had considerable ministerial experience, I do not for one moment believe that an incoming Conservative Government could cut out all waste, or even most of it. But they could do a much better job of curbing and reducing waste than the present Administration. In fact, the present Administration have made the job much easier for an incoming Conservative Government because their waste is so monumental. Huge sums go into the machine, but very little of value extra comes out. It is like going shopping. When I go to a shop, the only two things that interest me are whether it has the goods I want to buy and whether they are at the right price—can I get the quality and the price that I want?

John Randall: Come to my shop.

John Redwood: I am not sure that I am allowed to advertise my hon. Friend's shop in this place, but I am sure that things are very good in Uxbridge.
	What I want to know is whether the shop has the right goods at the right price. In the Labour shop for public services, the answer is no. The goods are not available—one has to wait 15 months for an operation, and the school results are not good so one cannot get the quality that one wants. The price is astronomical, as we can see in the Bill before us. What do the Government do, then? They do not satisfy us by increasing the supply and quality or reducing the price. On the contrary, they lecture us, saying that it is wonderful news that although they do not have the operation that we want in the hospital and that we cannot have it for 15 months, they are delighted to tell us that they have taken a huge extra sum from our pay packets and are spending it somewhere in the health service, although they cannot tell us where and although it will not provide the operation. If my hon. Friend's shop were not as good as it is and were unable to supply me the goods I wanted at the price I wanted, and if he gave me a lecture saying that I would nevertheless be delighted to know that he had forced a levy on his customers, had spent it and had no clue where the money had gone, I would not go back to his shop, and I would have some pretty unprintable things to say about what it had done. Yet that is Labour's public service shop—no service, huge bills and endless arguments about how the Government have spent a huge sum, for which we ought to be grateful.

Nigel Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe this travesty? Indicators for the health service all show improvements over the past two years. Primary school literacy and numeracy have gone up unbelievably. Schools and hospitals recognise that big changes are happening. The right hon. Gentleman seems to fall into the trap that his whole party falls into by trying constantly to talk down services while ignoring the real indicators of improvement.

John Redwood: Some schools have done well, and some have done a bit better. However, if the hon. Gentleman examines the overall record, he will see that the health service has gone backwards and that more people are waiting longer in pain without the treatment that they want. [Interruption.] I speak as I find in my constituency; my constituents would not want me to say that everything is wonderful in our local health service when it is far from so. Far too many people are waiting too long for treatment that they ought to receive either immediately or very quickly.
	The transport system is in chaos. The underground is far worse than it was five years ago and is not able to provide the transport needed at a time when the congestion charge stops all but the rich from travelling by car. There is chaos and dislocation on the railways after a back-door renationalisation that has backfired, costing the Government and the taxpayer a fortune, and which is delivering a worse service than the Government inherited in 1997.
	I have more government than I want, more government than I need, and more government than my constituents and I can afford. The Government are not delivering. Public services are not getting better, and in many cases, such as transport, they are getting a lot worse. In Labour's public sector shop, the price goes ever upwards, the goods are either not available or of an inferior quality, and there is no choice. I will vote against the Bill with relish. It is a Bill from a rip-off Government who are charging us far too much for a lousy range of public services, a Government who are unable to tell us where all the money goes and how it is wasted. I look forward to supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary in the Division Lobby. When we return to power, they will undoubtedly be able to deliver more for less than this wasteful, rip-off Government have done.

Geraint Davies: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) so that I can put him right on a few general points. I shall cover a range of issues. The first is overall investment. Given the enormous increases in public expenditure that the country is now able to afford for schools, hospital and transport, the British electorate will clearly choose to support public investment and do not want the 20 per cent. cut that we would otherwise have.
	It is all very well saying. "Lots of money has been spent, but what is there to see for it?" The reality is that, thanks to the stability that we created by making the Bank of England independent and through prudent management, the British economy now has 1.5 million more people paying tax instead of taking benefits. Because Britain is working again and because we have macroeconomic stability and such things as working families tax credit to make work pay, we have people back at work, providing money. The money is being invested in our health service, our schools and our transport infrastructure. There is a lot more to do, but business responds to a better-educated work force.
	Locally, the number of people obtaining five or more GCSEs in Croydon has gone up from 45 per cent. to 49 per cent. in a single year. Last year, Croydon also had an extra 227 nurses and record numbers of people being treated. On the ground, people are seeing benefits. If one runs a business, as I have done, the fact that people are more healthy and not waiting as long is good news. We are seeing returns. Interest rates are at a 20-year low, and the position on inflation is similar. People can plan with security, knowing they can pay back the investments that they make in their own homes without fear of repossession and bankruptcy—a situation that is unprecedented in British economic history. They know now that the economy is safe in Labour's hands, when formerly they felt completely insecure about their future. That is good and should be acknowledged.
	Hon. Members have spoken generally about productivity. Productivity is continuing to grow, but Opposition Members occasionally say that the rate of growth is not as much as it might be. The reason is that if one rapidly increases the number of people working in an economy—we have had an increase of more than 1.5 million—the marginal productivity of the extra people entering the job market is less than the average productivity of the people already in the market, so one would expect a reduction in productivity. Instead, we are witnessing marginal increases.
	Now that we have so many people back in work, the big challenge, which the Chancellor has identified, is to gear up their productivity. We are doing that by investing in IT, encouraging training and investing in the regions. Overall investment is up, as a premium for the fact that people are in work. Alongside that, we have had record levels of debt repayment—more debt repaid in Britain than ever before. Debt in Britain when compared with gross domestic product is lower than in any other European country.
	The Opposition say, "Oh, look: the forecast is slightly out"—because of the world recession, obviously—but if one puts that in context, one realises that Britain's finances are completely sound. They are stronger than they have ever been. In the context of the EU stability pact—I am not a great fan of it—if Britain did borrow more than 3 per cent. of GDP, it could easily do so given our level of debt. France and Germany may breach that stability pact.
	Those are some of the issues that are rightly being considered by the Treasury as it weighs up whether the time is right to move forward and recommend joining the euro. I do not feel that the time is right; there are some issues concerning the structure of EU finance and the stability pact and the European Central Bank that need refinement. The Treasury recognises that.
	Already, France and Germany are likely to breach the terms of the stability pact. It is a great tribute to the Chancellor that he has introduced a model for the Bank of England that is so much better than that used by the European Central Bank. Specifically, my right hon. Friend's symmetrical inflation targets mean that if inflation drops more than 1 per cent. below the 2.5 per cent. target, or goes above it, in essence the Bank of England will adjust interest rates so that the economy is either reflated or deflated to maintain stability, whereas in the case of the European Central Bank there is simply a ceiling.
	In addition, we have the advantage of transparency in terms of what is decided in the Bank of England, so that the markets can be confident and comfortable with the reasons for those changes, which is not the case with the European Central Bank. So in terms of stability, managed growth and a regime that encourages reflation as well as holding a lid on overheating, we have a very good model, which explains the remarkable growth that we, as opposed to our European friends, have enjoyed.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman paints a rosy picture of the economy under Labour, but why has the UK's share of inward investment into Europe fallen so dramatically? What does he put that down to?

Geraint Davies: It is worth remembering that Britain is still the leading player. There are issues—do not misunderstand me—about big companies operating in Britain, using Britain as a platform into the European marketplace. They are very strong advocates for joining the euro because if one is an investor, and for argument's sake 80 per cent. of one's products will be consumed in Europe and 20 per cent. in Britain, it is obviously better to invest in mainland Europe, because one can produce in the currency that it is being consumed in, so there is no currency risk in production. The cost of production is known, the selling price is known and it is possible to work out the business plan. The company knows that if it exports some products to Britain, there is only a 20 per cent. risk. On the other hand, if the company invests in Britain, it has 80 per cent. risk. That is why big investors are taking a medium to long-term view on whether Britain will join the euro. Many big investors from Japan or America, for example, want to see us join the euro eventually.
	We need to get the conditions right. The Chancellor is right to focus on sustainable convergence, not on a one-off hit. He is right to think about what is right for Britain overall, and to consider, as he did in the Budget, ideas such as those to take the risk to home owners out of the equation, in order to combat the one-size-fits-all argument about interest rates. Presumably, the rationale behind his statement is that if people have fixed-rate mortgages and there is an adjustment to the interest rate, they will be insulated from that, whether the interest rate is set by the Bank of England or the European Central Bank. There are certainly strong arguments for going into the euro. The Leader of the Opposition and others are completely wrong to say that we will name the date and go in irrespective of the conditions and irrespective of whether we satisfy the five conditions for sustainable convergence.
	Moving on from the wider macroeconomic situation that has delivered us such a bonanza in terms of economic success and investment in our public services, I shall speak briefly about distribution. Some of my colleagues have mentioned regional and sustainable economic growth, and the Chancellor has focused on full employment by the region.

David Cameron: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off macroeconomics, perhaps he could say why, after 10 years of economic growth, the Chancellor needs to borrow £24 billion this year.

Geraint Davies: Obviously we must adjust to the peaks and troughs of the overall global economy. I think everyone would accept that forecasts for economic growth in the global economy have been massively pared down, as have those in all the major economies, although the reduction in economic growth forecasts in Britain has been less than in the rest of Europe and in America and Japan. It is sound finance that we borrow and spend more when we are in a dip than when we are on the way up, but we are not in a recession in the way that other comparable economies are, because of prudent economic management.

David Cameron: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Chancellor's forecast, he will see that the Chancellor is forecasting growth of over 2 per cent. for this year and over 3 per cent. for next year and the year after; that is hardly a trough. In that case, why are we borrowing £24 billion this year and £81 billion over the forthcoming four years? If that is a trough, I would hate to see a really bad trough.

Geraint Davies: Obviously, growth forecasting is not a perfect science, but those people who doubt for a moment the accuracy, within reasonable tolerances, of the Chancellor's forecasts should look carefully, as I am sure they have not, at the world price of oil as a stimulant of growth. I mentioned it in a previous debate.

David Cameron: What has that got to do with it?

Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman asks, "What has that got to do with economic growth?" It is obvious to someone who knows anything about economics. The oil price, which is a major stimulant of world growth, has moved from about $40 a barrel down to $20 a barrel in the last month or so, as more and more oil has been put into the marketplace because of the fear of the Iraq war, which has thankfully come to an early end. As confidence returns to world markets, and as input prices are lower, we are now seeing an opportunity to get back to buoyant growth.

Howard Flight: rose—

Geraint Davies: I see that the hon. Gentleman is twitching.

Howard Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he have any concerns about the fall in the savings ratio and the fact that the economy is being supported largely by personal consumption—by large amounts of housing equity mortgage release? Some £52 billion of it last year accounted for virtually all the growth in consumption. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a sound base from which the economy may move forward?

Geraint Davies: I am pleased that I have been asked that helpful question because the reality is that, first, savings ratios are historically low at times of public confidence in the economy. When people think that there is a sustainable growth path without massive redundancies, repossessions and a Conservative Government down the road, their conventional savings are less. Secondly, people save in a different portfolio of ways these days—not simply in pensions, although they are important. People's major form of saving is in house equity, and in many instances it is rational to put money into housing instead of pensions.
	Thirdly, people are increasingly investing in human capital—their propensity to generate wealth in the future. If one is a young person, it is by no means obvious that one should simply start an individual savings account. Young people might be better off putting the money into human capital development, perhaps by entering the housing market. We need to take a more sophisticated look at a lifetime model of savings. Frankly, having a facile and out-of-date look at savings ratios—an indicator of average savings—is naive in a stable economy. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that helpful question.
	I am a great supporter of the Chancellor's ambitions for full employment regionally. That is a very difficult issue because prices and costs in the south-east and London are obviously much higher. Some eminent academics—Professors Oswold of Warwick university and, of course, Elliot of Aberdeen university—have looked at the private sector mark-up to attract labour for a standardised job in London, which I briefly mentioned in an intervention, and it is 25 per cent. in outer London and nearly 50 per cent. in inner London. They have also considered whether there is any replication in public services and, if so, how we manage it to avoid public sector workers migrating from London—we do not have enough proper public services in London—or pricing out some of the Labour market for the private sector outside London.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the recent evidence from Incomes Data Services that suggests that most national private companies use national pay scales and do not vary their wage rate much between regions?

Geraint Davies: It is certainly not the case that most companies—or even a small minority of companies—do not provide a London weighting. That suggestion is completely false, and the statistics that I have already quoted apply: the mark-up for London is about 40 per cent. That is necessarily so because housing and transport costs are significantly higher and there are other built-in quality-of-life costs. Other things being equal, people would prefer to live in a less congested, less busy environment.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the payment of public service workers is a problem not only in the south-east, but in all areas of the United Kingdom? There is a specific problem with recruitment in Scotland, where many public sector workers consider themselves to be underpaid. How will that be solved by the Government's proposal, in effect, to increase wages by regional indices in the south-east, but not in other parts of the UK? Will that not exacerbate the problem in some of the poorer areas of the UK?

Geraint Davies: Not at all. That is not an accurate representation of the Government's position, which, as I understand it, is that flexibility should be considered where shortages occur. Clearly, that is an issue in the areas with shortages. Perhaps people are desperate to be nurses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and they are not being paid enough and are being priced out by other competitive jobs. However, I suggest that that is not the case at all. One has to take seriously the outputs of the market. Some of those market outputs occur for other reasons, such as not enough affordable housing. We need to address those issues as well, or instead: we cannot simply pretend that they are not there.
	The firefighters' ambition is to have a 40 per cent. increase. The reality is that in parts of London there might be limited justification for that increase, if we are to get enough people to do the job, but there is no justification for a 40 per cent. increase in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall move on before I provoke too much anger about that.
	In relation to the distributional impact, I want to mention take-up of the working tax credit. The Opposition have criticised the take-up rate, but I understand that it is about 92 per cent. already and families with incomes up to £58,000 are eligible, so only about 8 per cent. of the people who are eligible for some level of benefit are not taking it up. Of course, they are clustered at the top end of that income scale—the £58,000 end—where there is less benefit to be got. That can be compared to the normal take-up of means-tested benefits, as opposed to payroll-delivered tax credits. The Chancellor has made a strategic change over the years in moving from means-tested, "You can have it if you want it", stigmatised benefits, which generated take-up rates of only 50 per cent., to saying, "Yes, this is your right. We are encouraging you to work through the payroll"—with 92 per cent. take-up rates. In fact, that is in a sense a way to subsidise business wages to enable families to participate in the labour market. That is a tremendous achievement and a success.
	I wish to refer briefly to delivery in other areas. Prisons were mentioned by the Chancellor, who said that the Reading example was delivering and that about 80 per cent. of inmates were going into work on leaving prison. I have a particular interest in trying to increase the effectiveness of our prison system so that it delivers taxpayers instead of long-term liabilities. The reality is that we spend £34,000 a year on each person in prison and there are 73,000 people in prison, two thirds of whom reoffend when they leave it. Many prisoners are not educated to any extent, and 70 per cent. have been excluded from school and, before we invested in pupil referral units, they were wandering around stealing mobile phones and the like. Some 10 per cent. of the overall numeracy and literacy target relates to people in prison.
	As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am horrified to know that only £700 of the £34,000 that we invest in those people is spent on education, compared with £3,500 spent on each pupil in the average state school or £15,000 in a public school. If more of the £34,000 were spent on providing the best, intensive education, more of those people would be turned into taxpayers, and we need to consider creative ways of doing that. The amount spent on health for each inmate is less than for the average person in Britain, although mental health problems are endemic in prison.
	I shall say why I mention those things. It is obviously important to generate the global wealth and economic stability and to get right the distributional basis, the regional basis and the take-up basis. We have done that, but it is also important to consider efficient delivery mechanisms, and there is clearly a lot to do in the Prison Service to generate taxpayers out of people who have previously been criminals.
	Finally, I wish to refer to hospitals. Obviously, the major debate tomorrow will be about the delivery of hospitals and whether foundation hospitals can represent a major key to progress in having not only minimum performance standards that increase over time but an environment where innovation can be pushed forward. As all hon. Members know, there are a number of issues. I do not see the issue as being the delivery of a consumer and patient-driven, post-Fordian system that is characterised by innovation and rising standards, which are then dissipated throughout the system. That is fine, but my specific questions about foundation hospitals relate to consumer accountability.
	Will we still have patient forums, which were the successors to community health councils? There is a question mark over that. Those are questions for the debate tomorrow, but I just mention them in passing, as they have a bearing on the Finance Bill. I shall listen to that debate, as I have an open mind on the issue. If the Treasury is delivering the money and there are, as in the past, performance targets, will that mechanism help to deliver the services that we all want to see?
	There are issues about audit. Obviously, the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission go in and take to pieces the health service and produce recommendations for increased performance. If foundation hospitals appoint their own private sector accountants, there will be issues about the power of accounting and the relationship between the national auditors, the regulators and the hospitals, and I shall be interested to listen to those discussions. Clearly, there will be more freedom, and we want as much, if not more, accountability to Parliament. There are issues about public sector asset management in relation to the use of land assets around London and so on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he really ought not to debate today the issues that we will debate tomorrow.

Geraint Davies: I appreciate that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Put simply, this Budget is first about providing an economic framework that will deliver the quantum of resources and stable framework needed for public services. Secondly, it is about providing a distributional system that is fair and equitable. Thirdly, it is about providing new and innovative modernised delivery systems, which ensure rising standards on a continuing basis, in a fair and equitable way. We have the means of delivering more and increasing success in Britain today. Some underlying and legitimate questions need to be asked in a debate that will take place tomorrow, not today, but I very much welcome the Budget.

Michael Jack: I begin by reminding the House of my business interests, which have been declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
	When I listened to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), I thought that I was in a parallel universe. I suddenly slipped forward to tomorrow—to a debate that has yet to occur—and although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provided no conclusions or projections about what will happen tomorrow, I knew I had been there.
	When I listened to other Labour Members' contributions, I thought I was in the same parallel universe, in which everything in the economy was rosy and wonderful—investment was pouring in, services were being provided and so on. Yet when I returned to the other universe of the Conservative Benches and I recalled what people had told me on the doorstep during the election campaign about the real economy—the problems faced by north-west manufacturing industry, the increase in council tax of three or four times above the level of inflation, and schools struggling to find enough money—I began to think that I was in a slightly different world. Conservative Members are in the real world, and Labour Members are in an unreal world. I reflected on the fact that perhaps some Labour Members had not tuned in to or had direct experience of business; otherwise, we would not have heard some of the speeches that we have so far heard on this Finance Bill.
	I cannot claim to share the Paymaster General's record of attendance on Finance Bills, but I follow her closely for the number in which I have been involved as an Opposition Member and as a Minister. If I had to rate the vintage of the Bill on a scale of nought to 10, I would give it about five. It does not contain any seriously interesting blockbuster measures, but it has many clauses—214—43 schedules and 447 pages, largely taken up by the introduction of the new stamp duty measures and land tax. That section of the Bill has a wraparound labelled, "Anti-avoidance". When we look at other sections of the Finance Bill, we find that anti-avoidance is a theme that weaves its way through many of the clauses.
	That leads me to my first point—the quality of drafting of tax legislation. It is probably right that the Government should reform a tax that is some 200 years old—in this case, stamp duty—but questions have already been asked about how the new arrangements will work and the degree of consultation that has taken place. Given that during the Budget announcement the Government made great play of an additional £66 million to tackle tax avoidance and fraud, which they claimed would bring back into tax some £1.6 billion—some of the measures to achieve that are mentioned in the Bill—I wondered, if I may tell a little story against the Government of which I was a member, how they would achieve such a remarkable rate of return. The same people who are now Treasury Ministers attacked in opposition a measure that we proposed in the 1996 Budget to spend £187 million on corporate technical review and avoidance, income tax compliance and action on the shadow economy to yield £1.9 billion. I would therefore be grateful if, at some stage, Ministers would enlighten us with more detail on how that remarkable rate of return—£1.6 billion from £66 billion—is to be achieved.
	That gives rise to two questions. First, have all the loopholes been closed? The answer is no. If a yield of £1.6 billion is achieved as a result of spending £66 million, perhaps a little more expenditure could have yielded an even greater return, thereby removing the need for some of the other obvious and stealth taxes in this and previous Budgets. Equally, it leads to the question of whether the resources of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are sufficient to enable them to cope with the complexity with which the Revenue must now deal, especially the additional work on tax credits. In addition, we have known for some considerable time, as the Public Accounts Committee has told us, about the failure of Customs and Excise fully to gather in all the revenue for which it is responsible.
	When I considered the overall economic challenges that I had hoped the Finance Bill might address, I asked myself whether it would do anything about the adult savings gap. The answer was no. Would it do anything to address the question of the pensions crisis, which other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned? The answer was no. When the Government advocated the ending of the payable tax credit, one of their justifications for it was that it would increase private investment because pressure would not exist to distribute said moneys in the form of dividends. According to the Government's data, however, two things have happened: first, private investment has fallen; and, secondly, productivity in the economy has also fallen. Both those arguments knock out one of the key justifications for the tax hit on the pensions industry. For those who have life assurance and endowment products, was there anything in the Budget to deal with that? The answer was no; there is nothing in the Finance Bill either.
	I am therefore disappointed that even on this occasion the Government have sought not to adjust, as I understand it, the internal tax rates in life assurance and other similar products to visit on the holders of those collective investment vehicles the same beneficial changes that have occurred in capital gains tax for those who hold assets outside investment vehicles. When I last asked for the cost of that work, I was told that it was about £35 million to £37 million. It is always dangerous for a Conservative Member to ask for any money to be spent, but given the losses that have occurred to the value of those long-term savings vehicles, the Government are guilty of a dereliction of duty by ignoring that area.
	I mentioned productivity. The Chancellor's previous Budgets have been laced with a rich cocktail of micro-managing different parts of the economy. It is interesting that we hear little about whether those measures have delivered in economic terms. On the sum total in terms of productivity, my eye was drawn to an interesting commentary in the Financial Times, in an article by Chris Giles, on what the Chancellor said in the Budget, which is reflected in the Finance Bill, about productivity:
	"He could have added that the productivity gap between the UK and the US has fallen by 7 percentage points since November."
	He continued that the Chancellor's boast,
	"was a classic in its selective use of statistics, its use of inconsistent time periods, and its exploitation of irrelevant data revisions."
	From a seasoned observer of Britain's productivity position, that is a damning critique: it is a critique of the overall use by the Chancellor, in many cases, of the numbers in the Budget, which, again, are reflected in this Finance Bill. It raises some severe doubts about many of the Budget's statistical projections, to which the Bill refers, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned.
	The principal aspect of the Bill is the reform of stamp duty. It raises the interesting question of how much work has been done to ensure that there will not be further innovative thinking on redeploying the use of leases, notwithstanding the question of the measure's practicality and how the complexities of the formula to calculate net present value will operate. The measure is designed to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty by ruling out the practice of creating a company and buying a share in it. Given the pressures on the Revenue, I suspect that an industry will start that will design leases to find ways around the measure. Although we know that the stamp duty land tax is a tax on an interest in land, one cannot say, practically or philosophically, that a lease is an interest in land. A lease is a way to access premises, for example, but it does not confer ownership of the land on which such premises stand. There is a further inconsistency: if we are to tax such specific leases, why have other leases not been similarly addressed? It would be useful to hear a more philosophical and practical explanation of why the Government have chosen to reform such taxation—many people would be interested to hear it.
	There is also a question about inheritance tax. It is interesting that stamp duty and inheritance tax reflect an era in which there was not the same range of taxes under the labels of indirect taxes and taxes on income. The Treasury could get hold of such money at that time only when a capital transaction occurred. The principal asset of the majority of people in the United Kingdom is their home, but because house prices have risen, especially in the south and south-east, the £255,000 limit on exemption from inheritance tax is very low.
	The Chancellor told us that 95 per cent. of estates escape paying inheritance tax but, given that the Treasury has been examining stamp duty, the Bill should, in the interests of reform, have identified a better way of dealing with individuals' inheritance tax. People use labyrinthine and complex measures to avoid paying inheritance tax, which is why 95 per cent. of estates escape paying it. However, is it right that people should have to go to such expense and use such complex methods in this day and age? Many of the system's complexities would disappear if inheritance tax provisions contained a more realistic and proper assessment of the principal private asset—the domestic residence. People would then not worry about trying to find ways to pass on to their heirs at least some of the fruits of their labours that had been accumulated by hard work and already subjected to taxation both when income was generated and through indirect taxation. There is a great need for change.
	I mentioned the justification of several of the Chancellor's micro-measures, and I shall comment on value added tax. I was roundly attacked by Treasury Ministers last year for having the temerity to question whether it was right to reduce the rate of value added tax on children's car seats, which was proposed as a great measure to reduce road deaths among children. I would sign up to measures that would have a significant impact on reducing road deaths among children, but will the Paymaster General put my inquisitiveness to rest by telling me—if not today, perhaps she could write to me—how many deaths have been avoided according to the analysis that she has no doubt conducted on the measure? The micro-measure is a classic example of something that, I suspect, has had a marginal effect, if any. It is typical of the measures that have littered this and previous Finance Bills.
	There are more serious matters relating to VAT. The Bill contains provisions on users of mobile phones and certain other electronic goods who are involved in a contractual arrangement in which one party does not pay VAT. It is absolutely right to clobber people if they knowingly avoid paying their dues. However, there will be innocent parties in such situations. For example, unsophisticated small firms without the benefit of complex legal advice on contracts may be caught up innocently by the arrangement. What level of proof will Customs and Excise use to determine whether there is joint and several liability? Will the Paymaster General tell us how the measure will work practically, because that would help everyone and give those who operate in an uncertain world a clearer and better idea about it?
	Clause 165 contains a worthwhile measure to tighten provisions on information technology and capital allowances. However, although that measure and the proposed change to the tonnage tax are small aspects of the Bill, they give us an interesting illustration of the quality of drafting. We are tightening measures introduced last year, although I was told that there was exhaustive consultation with the shipping industry on the tonnage tax. The existing measure is already taking on water and must be blocked up by a new provision in the Bill. I know how hard people in the Inland Revenue and parliamentary counsel work because I have worked with them, but given the amount of tax law—and tax law rewriting—with which they must deal, questions are being raised about the resources that they receive and the quality of the work that may be done.
	I want to raise an intriguing aspect of the Bill: the allowance that will be given for expenses incurred if somebody is a home worker. If, for example, an extra bit of cleaning is required in the office, the Revenue calculates that £104 extra per person employed may be claimed without the need for paperwork. How was it decided that £2 a week was the right amount for the concession? It seems to have been plucked out of thin air. If we are genuinely interested in encouraging home working, such a nit-picking measure is not the best way to achieve it.
	I turn to green measures because the Bill includes a measure to increase the landfill tax. The Paymaster General might find it odd to hear me say that the increase suggested in the Bill will have zero effect on reducing the amount of waste generated. That is clear from evidence from the inquiry that has been conducted by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member. The Government must make faster progress. I am disappointed that the Bill will not change the climate change levy, because that affects the extent to which combined heat and power is encouraged.
	The Government have cottoned on to the idea that a 20p per litre derogation for biodiesel is sufficient, but I hope that they will reconsider that. The Financial Secretary wrote a letter to me that said that because a plant was being set up in Motherwell that would increase biodiesel production, the 20p reduction in duty would be sufficient. In fact, it is clear from EU guidelines that this country will need far more than the 4.5 million litres of additional biodiesel a month that the Motherwell plant can generate from waste materials. There will be a 27 million litre gap if we are to meet the EU guideline targets of 2 per cent. biodiesel by 2005 and we will need a derogation of 30p a litre if agriculturally derived biodiesel is to be the order of the day. In all earnestness, I ask the Government to reconsider that.
	I end with three quick points. I hope that the Government will not ignore the fact that the competitive advantage that our corporation tax regime currently enjoys is being eroded. I am disappointed that there is nothing in the Bill on that.

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point on the competitiveness of the corporation tax regime—not just its rate, but its structure. Consultation has taken place and he will have heard the Chancellor announce that another publication will be produced in the summer, followed by more consultation with business to do precisely what he says—to maintain that competitive advantage across the board.

Michael Jack: I am grateful for that clarification. The Paymaster General makes an important statement on the positioning of the second round of consultation on corporation tax reform. I was aware of the arrangements and am glad that I raised the problem, especially if we manage to sustain the competitive advantage.
	I should have liked the Bill to create a special credit to encourage UK companies that want to invest in the most difficult parts of the world, such as Iraq and the poorest 50 nations. We have a tax credit for research and development because we want to encourage that. Can we not consider the same mechanism to encourage British overseas investment in difficult parts of the world?
	Finally, I refer to a theme that I have mentioned a number of times in the context of the Finance Bill: the need to commit ourselves to go beyond the tax law rewrite exercise and to look comprehensively at the way in which our tax system operates. A draft new clause was sent to me on behalf of practitioners in the tax industry. The first part of it reads:
	"The Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise shall jointly prepare a report to be submitted to Parliament on the need for a Tax Law Commission, to act in parallel to and to complement the work of the Law Commission."
	That is one possible mechanism by which Government, industry, tax practitioners and Parliament might be enjoined in an exercise to consider carefully the complexity of the way in which our tax system works by building on the tax law rewrite exercise to produce a better tax system for the United Kingdom.

Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record something about which the Conservative party has said little this evening: the innovative child trust fund, which I support, and the £350 million that the Finance Bill makes available to invest in that. I also support the extra money for pensioners and many of the measures that are aimed at boosting competitiveness and productivity, which enable us to continue our work on the micro-economy. In particular, I welcome the incentives that the Bill and the Budget put in place to help improve skills, to reward investment in new technology and to promote innovation at a regional level. I have in mind the extension of the employer training pilots through the learning and skills councils—another important innovation by the Government—the extension of the research and development tax credits and measures to promote innovation throughout the supply chain, not least by working more closely at a regional level to build up regional networks by working with local industry, local government and local businesses. That will create the pool of skills and economic opportunity that is needed to encourage the innovation that will spread the strong economic growth experienced in some areas throughout the country.
	The measures that are aimed at boosting productivity and competitiveness are important. Having put in place a highly successful and robust framework for macro-economic stability, the biggest long-term economic challenges that face the country are micro-economic and involve how we can improve British competitiveness and productivity. The Budget measures implemented by the Bill reflect our commitment to economic stability and to enterprise and innovation. Those are coupled with measures to advance social justice, which has become the trademark of the Government whose work the Chancellor and his Front-Bench team carry out well. There is nothing different in that sense between this Finance Bill and others. I was pleased to see that we have more of the same so that we can build on the solid foundations for the future.
	It is surprising that we have not heard more from the Conservatives about those micro-economic challenges, which involve the need to improve investment and innovation to boost competitiveness and productivity. Instead, we heard a long list of things that they do not like about the Budget, such as investment in public services. We want to raise revenue for those public services, but they wish to cut that investment, and in the parts of the debate that I heard, they focused on such fiscal measures and the macro-economic framework.
	I first came to this place a few years ago, in 1997. Wimbledon was a Conservative seat for a long time and I was full of ideas, hopes and aspirations about what we could change. Many of my constituents accepted that I wanted to invest in public services—in hospitals and schools—but the first question they asked was, "Where is the money going to come from?" It is clear from the Bill where the money will come from because it sets out all the measures that are being developed by the Government to raise the resources that we need to meet our commitments to invest in public services.
	It is all very well for Conservative Members to say, "No, no. It's not 20 per cent. cuts that we want." The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that we were wrong to think that and that it was not kind of us to suggest that they want to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. In fact, from what he said, it seems that they really want to cut public expenditure by 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. We could have long and interesting discussions about that, but they would be academic because there is not much prospect of the Conservatives returning to office at the moment. We can, however, imagine what would happen if they formed a Government.
	We can debate the level of cuts, but what we should really talk about is where the money will come from to pay for services. It is not possible for the Conservatives to say that they do not want to cut public expenditure and then to oppose a list of measures that are directed at raising revenue to pay for public services. Every year we have a Budget and a Finance Bill to implement its measures. Every year there is an opportunity, as there is this evening, to remind my constituents why they voted Labour for the first time in 1997 and then did so again in 2001. They will continue to vote for us because we can answer their question: "Where will the money come from?" It is because families, individuals and, in larger and larger numbers, small and medium-sized businesses do not trust the Conservatives with their economic security and future prosperity that they keep coming back to us. I am confident that at the next election many people will have further reason to avoid putting their trust in the Opposition, because it will be clear to them, as it is clear to me now, that not only can the Opposition not be trusted with their economic security and future prosperity but, in addition, they cannot be trusted with the public finances that the Government's able stewardship of the economy and the hard work of millions of taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, have helped to create.
	It is an historical fact that the last Tory Government spent recklessly. They spent not only on the failure of their fiscal policies, as rising unemployment resulted in soaring social services budgets, up from £50 million in 1992 to £90 billion in 1997, but on the failure of their monetary policies—15 per cent. interest rates meant that the homeowner faced the threat and, in many cases, the reality of eviction, and the taxpayer was meeting the burden of the rising cost of Government debt. The Tories spent on consultancies. We have heard attacks on public servants and administrators in the health service and other areas of the public sector tonight, but what about all those private service consultants who received all that public money raised by previous Finance Bills to dismantle the public services, sell them off quickly and, in many cases, cheaply to plug the vast, gaping hole in public finances that they had created?

George Osborne: rose—

Roger Casale: I am keen to make progress, so I shall not give way at this stage. However, I shall see how I get on and if I have a bit of time later I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will know from my efforts in the House that I am usually generous in doing so, but I am anxious that Government Members should have the opportunity to speak. I am keen, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House are, that I should get to the end of my speech.
	Let us see how the Tory party has got on in opposition. Having spent recklessly when in government, it has now pledged to cut public finances if it ever returns to office. The Opposition have a bit of an image problem that they need to straighten out, but it will not be cured by a skin-deep makeover. I notice that they have now become very attentive.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interests of understanding the hon. Gentleman's remarks, would you be so kind as to direct me to the part of the Bill that deals with Conservative policy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman can safely leave these matters to the Chair.

Roger Casale: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding us that this is a debate. It is much better to meet criticism in debate than to try to raise points of order.
	The public have not got the wrong idea about the Opposition—the problem for the Tories is that they take a long time to forget. The Tories spent money recklessly when in office but that does not give them the right to challenge our decisions in government to invest public finances wisely to rebuild schools and build new hospitals after decades of neglect and under-investment. Many big, long-term challenges are micro-economic in nature and are addressed by the Bill, but we must not forget that the point of a Finance Bill is to allow the Government to raise taxes. We need to raise those revenues to meet our commitment to invest in public services.
	Let us also not lose sight of the substantial advances that have been made since we broke the boom-and-bust cycle of the past and put the economy on a stable, long-term footing, without which we would not have the confidence to take the measures that we are taking in the Budget and the Finance Bill. Without that confidence and stability we would not have a robust answer to the question asked by my constituents—"Where is the money that you want to spend going to come from?" The Opposition may wish to divert attention from the fact that we have a better record on economic management than they do by criticising us for not being perfect. We have heard some Panglossian speeches this evening as well as important and substantial technical points about the Budget, especially from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), which we can consider when the Bill goes into Committee. We should remember—my constituents certainly do—that what is important is the fact that we can be trusted with running the economy, but the Opposition cannot.
	The Government are performing well not only against previous Governments but according to any international comparison. My experience of talking to my constituents is that they understand that message very well. They want to be better off in future, not worse off; they want an economy that will offer greater opportunity to their children than was available to them; they want to be able to plan for the future and save for their retirement. Perhaps one of the greatest virtues of the Bill is, one might say, the fact that it is a little more boring than previous Finance Bills. There is nothing that may be described as overly radical, but it builds on the foundation of earlier years. It gives us more of the same, giving my constituents the feeling that life is a little more predictable than it was under the Tories, when one could lose one's job and prospects overnight and one's mortgage payments could treble or quadruple in a matter of weeks.
	The remarkable thing about the Opposition is that, rather than learning the lessons of past mismanagement, they continue to oppose precisely those measures that we have taken to stabilise the British economy and keep it on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Indeed, they are doing so again tonight by attacking the Bill's provisions. They opposed the measures that we have put in place to make work pay and get people back to work. They opposed the measures that we put in place to tackle poverty, much of it the result of their economic mismanagement. Now, as we invest the dividend of sound economic management in our public services, they oppose the measures needed to raise the extra resources going in. They may say that they do not, but they do. They do not have an answer—the Bill is such an answer—to the question of where the money is coming from to make that investment. Their prescription is that of a party that failed in the past and is made to a Government who are succeeding. Accepting that prescription would have the consequence of undermining people's prospects and quality of life in future. I said earlier in an intervention that the Opposition's prescription is misguided and misplaced, and we should reject it. Let us not forget that our prescription for the NHS is 80,000 new nurses and 25,000 more doctors. It all has to be paid for, which is why the Bill before us tonight is important.
	We know very well that the Opposition want to make at least 20 per cent. cuts to public services, and the great advantage of a debate such as this one is that we can keep a tally of where those cuts will be made. We have heard from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that he opposes some of the changes to stamp duty that are contained in the Bill. He himself gave a figure of £8 billion that would be lost to the Treasury if our changes to stamp duty did not go ahead. We have also heard that he will oppose the changes that we are making to national insurance. That would cost the Exchequer £10.2 billion. Finally, we have heard that he opposes the changes that we are making to VAT collection that will yield an extra £3 billion to the Exchequer. While he was speaking, I began to tot up the cost of the measures that he said his party would oppose. I reached the sum of £23.2 billion, and that was before taking into account the threat made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to raise the ceiling on personal allowances, which would yield further billions of pounds in revenue cuts. He gave an indication of how much would be involved in total when he referred to a sum of about 8 per cent. of the overall tax take.
	The hon. Gentleman then challenged the Chief Secretary to say what the economic effect of his speech would be. One effect of implementing the revenue cuts on the scale that the hon. Gentleman set out—he says that, in principle, he does not want to cut public expenditure, but showed us tonight how in practice public expenditure would have to be cut—would be that we would lose hospitals and schools, and investment in extra police officers and transport links throughout the country, in my constituency, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in those of other hon. Members throughout the House.
	I have listened to the debate, but the Conservative party does not have a prescription for reforming public services. It cannot have such a prescription because, on the basis of tonight's debate, it will not have the money to invest in public services. Without backing up reforms with money, there is no prospect of them working and being sustainable in the longer term.
	I welcome the Finance Bill. Its measures are needed to raise the money that we are committed to raising to invest in our public services, and we have seen tonight how that money would be taken away from our schools and hospitals and the fight against crime and from investment in our transport infrastructure if the Conservatives, with such a miserable record of economic management, were ever to be returned to office again.

Mark Simmonds: I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) who made what can at best politely be called an intriguing contribution to the debate, the relevance of which to the Finance Bill I cannot quite fathom. I declare my interests as detailed in the Register of Members' Interests.
	The presentation by the Chief Secretary of the Finance Bill this afternoon was duplicitous on an industrial scale. There was no mention of the 60 tax rises that we have seen since 1997, despite promises to the contrary before the 1997 election. There was no mention of the fact that tax revenues have increased by 50 per cent. since 1997—£5,500 in extra tax taken per household per year.
	It is claimed that the Finance Bill is deregulatory, and that one of the main tenets of the preceding Budget was to build a more enterprising economy. I wondered whether we were hearing one of the Chancellor's rare moments of humour. The Government have piled red tape and bureaucracy on large and small business alike to the tune of between £15 billion and £20 billion per annum since 1997. In addition, in the first five years of the Government, we have seen 19,322 new regulations, which some say is exactly the same as under the previous Conservatives Government, but not at all, it is a 53 per cent. increase in regulations.
	Like several hon. Members in today's debate, I wish to make a few remarks regarding the Chancellor's borrowing predictions underpinning the Finance Bill. He has had to reassess his growth forecasts twice in four months. His growth forecast this year is at least 1 per cent. out, and the borrowing forecast is a dramatic £27 billion this year alone—a sum totalling £110 billion over the next five years. That is on the basis of what most independent commentators, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Bank of England, believe are over-optimistic growth forecasts.
	The Chancellor has calculated his sums perversely and incorrectly. He should first assess the economic growth and then calculate the size of the tax revenue stream and therefore how much we can afford to spend as a country, not, as he has done, decide the spending levels and then assess his economic growth predictions to fit. Fiscal sustainability is a prerequisite for macro-economic stability.
	It is no coincidence that while the Chancellor was relatively prudent and controlled public expenditure, the economic tanker, fully fuelled and steaming full ahead in May 1997, continued approximately on the same course. It began to unravel when he removed the tight control of public expenditure. In the context of a weak European economy, that was not a sensible thing to do. Indeed, his achievement of ensuring that the deterioration in Britain's public finance is worse than that in most of the rest of the European Union is a spectacular failure, particularly considering the overweening and inflexible labour markets that exist on mainland Europe.
	When public expenditure is growing at 8 per cent. and the economy at only somewhere between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent., something has to give. That was predicated in the Budget on strong growth in tax revenues. This year's tax revenue growth prediction is 7.8 per cent.; next year's 7.4 per cent.; and in 2005–06, 7.2 per cent. Last year the rise was only 1.8 per cent. That disparity appears enormous. Only time will tell, but the Chancellor's predictions on which the Finance Bill is based look wholly and utterly irresponsible. It does not take a genius to conclude that there is an enormous fiscal hole, despite an additional £27 billion in taxation revenue this year. Most independent commentators believe that further taxes will have to be introduced to pay for that mismanagement and over-optimistic gamble.
	The Budget and Finance Bill debates would be of much greater complexity if the additional expenditure was contributing to or driving improvements in public services, but there is no such improvement. Public transport is worse, secondary education has deteriorated, with some notable exceptions, and the starkest statistic of all, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred, is that despite a 22 per cent. increase in health expenditure, there has been only a 1.5 per cent. increase in the number of patients receiving hospital treatment, and that is despite the hard work and tenacity of those who work in the health service.
	That is not just my view. It was confirmed by the politically independent chairman of the British Medical Association. Surely the Government must see that there needs to be an alternative solution to improving public services other than just throwing extra money at services. We need significant and real reform, which in my view will never happen under this Government because of the vested interests within the Labour movement. A centralised, monopolistic, uniform provision of service based on queueing and rationing will never succeed.
	The surest way to stimulate economic growth and entrepreneurial skill and to sustain job creation is to control public expenditure and reduce taxation, thereby increasing the Exchequer's take. There is no doubt that an expansionary and inflationary public sector limits private sector investment and growth. The inverse is also true. Restraining public expenditure necessitates and encourages private investment and job creation. I suspect that the main driving force behind the employment figures is not the sustainable expansion of the private sector, but rather a massive growth in the public sector. In short the Government are buying jobs with taxpayers' money. That is evidenced by the NHS having more managers than beds.
	I welcome parts of the Finance Bill, including the simplification of VAT, improving access to growth capital for small businesses, the cut in bioethanol duty, the abolition of bingo tax—although we shall need to look at the detail—pensioners receiving longer pension entitlement during hospital stays, and the principle of helping our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners.
	However, an additional £100 for those over 80—less than £2 a week—is nowhere near enough to compensate pensioners in my primarily rural constituency and many others throughout the country who have had to suffer council tax increases over and above the rate of inflation, primarily because the Government are deliberately transferring resources away from rural areas into their own urban heartlands.
	Not only has Boston borough council lost £500,000 this year in grant income, causing enormous consternation and concern in a low wage area, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed the funding and removed the local authority social housing grant. The House will be delighted to know that I will not explain that very complex matter in great detail.

George Osborne: Go on.

Mark Simmonds: I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that the removal of the local authority's ability to recycle the social housing grant via the Housing Corporation is contradictory and bizarre, considering the importance attached to housing in the Budget and the view that supply needs to be increased. The policy could put construction on hold permanently. In the Boston borough council area alone, it could put on hold 52 new units of affordable housing, 28 of which were intended for people with learning disabilities or enduring mental health problems. That is totally unacceptable.
	The review of housing supply set out in the Budget could start by thoroughly deconstructing the Government's housing policies. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will propose an amendment to the Finance Bill to resile from the policy on with-debt authorities.

Andrew Love: On housing policy and the local authority housing grant, will not the Government continue the grant for existing schemes so that they can be completed? Has there not been a significant increase in the support given to the Housing Corporation that dwarfs and swallows any reduction in the local authority housing grant?

Mark Simmonds: That is simply not true. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are providing funding for schemes that have already started, that is simply not the case either. That is happening where construction has commenced, but not where land has been purchased and building has not started. There are schemes in which the money has gone out, but the funding is not available for constructing the properties that are required to support the vulnerable people who deserve social housing.
	I want to refer specifically to the proposals on stamp duty. There seems to be some confusion among Ministers about exactly what the Government are proposing to do. Stamp duty impacts not only on residential transactions but on commercial property, which has become a significant investment sector, especially as the stock market has collapsed. Both individuals and pension funds have used commercial property as an investment vehicle and there is a strong argument that it should be decoupled from the residential market and have the same stamp duty rate as other investment sectors such as stocks and shares. The fact that it does not have the same rate is purely a revenue-raising exercise that is carried out irrespective of its negative impact on the economy. Indeed, some cynics would say that the continued extraction of tax from commercial property businesses, irrespective of the consequences, is intended merely to limit the perceived increases in personal taxation.
	The current structure of the commercial property market in respect of special purpose vehicles will be closed, as I understand it, further eroding the value of pension funds by £200 million. Is this an appropriate time to drive another stake through the heart of pension funds?
	In addition, the Bill proposes stamp duty on leases with a net asset value of £150,000. That approximates to a rent of between £10,000 and £15,000, which catches most retail properties, except those in tertiary parades. One of the defences that the Government have made of the proposal is that it is supposed to exclude small businesses. However, according to the British Property Federation, no business in London is likely to be exempt, and small business will not be immune. The policy will add £130 million per annum in costs to store opening programmes. Dixons will have a £2 million additional tax bill; B&Q £5 million; and Borders £1 million.
	The proposal will represent an increase in stamp duty of between 4 and 8 per cent., and that assumes that it will apply to 10-year leases. In reality, the figures will be far higher. The prime retail tenants do not take 10-year leases, but leases lasting a minimum of 15 years. Indeed, the licensed sector, including pubs, and the out-of-town retail warehouse sector usually take leases of between 20 and 35 years.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive point about the dangers of the leasing changes that the Government are introducing. Does he agree that the changes are especially dangerous because the economy in London and the south-east is currently fragile and retailers are reporting relatively poor figures? Will not the impact be especially bad for those retailers?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is not only the tenancy retail market that is problematic in the south-east: the office market has almost completely collapsed in the west end and the City of London, and that will be exacerbated when the proposals are introduced.
	It has been calculated that an incoming tenant with a 20-year lease would pay the equivalent of 14 per cent. of the first year's rent, instead of the current payment of 2 per cent. That will lead to the cancellation of new store proposals, reduce job creation and create uncertainty in relation to lease renewals in marginal sites. The taxation of leases is not about closing tax loopholes; it is a revenue-generating tax that will have a significant impact on the retail sector, which is a major force for blue-collar job creation in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in my constituency alone, 5,000 people or 15 per cent. of the work force are employed in the retail sector.
	In addition, such taxation will have a detrimental effect on pension funds' performance, as tenants will use the tax to negotiate lower rents and significantly shorter leases. That will have a negative impact on property values, and hence pension fund performance. That will directly and negatively affect every person in the United Kingdom who has a pension. A substantial tax on leases could lead to unoccupied buildings, depress the value of land, increase building obsolescence and reduce investment by tenants. It could also make it much more difficult to refurbish buildings. It will smother and reduce tenant movement in the property market, and it will not stimulate flexibility as companies grow, but put a stop to companies moving to larger premises.
	I can find no mention in the Bill of what will happen when companies enter into sale and leasebacks. Will there be a double hit on stamp duty as companies sell the freehold and take a lease back on the same building? In addition, there is the inevitable side effect of reduction in lease lengths and in the certainty of income, as the Government are potentially removing from the marketplace the individual saver and investor, so it will be left purely to the professionals who are prepared for and understand the high-risk nature of commercial property investment. To my mind, that is a perverse way of encouraging saving and investment.
	Part of the justification for stamp duty increases in the past few years has been the exclusion of deprived areas. Oddly, that is based purely on the wealth of residents, rather than the level of business activities. The lack of any decoupling of commercial and residential property has led to some very strange anomalies. The abolition of stamp duty in deprived areas has added £50 million to the value of the Meadowhall shopping centre outside Sheffield—a 1 per cent. or 10p increase on the net asset value per share of the owner, British Land. Others affected in a similar way include the Merryhill shopping centre in Dudley, outside Wolverhampton, Canary Wharf and almost all the retail centres of Birmingham and Manchester. Surely, that cannot have been the Government's intention, and I am intrigued to discover what further consultations there will be, what they will consist of and what structures the Government will put in place to negate this paradox.
	In conclusion, this is an imprudent, defective and high-risk Bill that is based on the foundation of imaginative and irresponsible future growth figures that seek to hide inevitable future increases in borrowing and taxation. This is not a good Finance Bill for business, individual taxpayers, pensioners and public services. Sadly, I suspect that far worse is yet to come.

Meg Munn: In particular, I should like to address issues affecting small businesses, which I want to set in the context of regional development proposals and issues affecting regions—issues that have been mentioned by other Labour Members, as we are beginning to see the Government develop a strong regional agenda.
	Historically, there have been significant differences between the regions of Britain for many years. Some 20 years ago, I found myself working in the south-east. Indeed, I worked in Wokingham, although I see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is not in his place. It was an interesting experience. I ended up working in Wokingham not out of choice—although I should say to the good people of Wokingham that I did not regret my period there—but because it was a time, under another Government, when the country was experiencing high unemployment. A certain gentleman who is now in another place exhorted those of us who were without work to get on our bikes to look for it, and that is indeed what I did. When I applied for the job I did not even know where Wokingham was, so I had to ask for directions to the interview. A huge contrast was evident between the situation of people living in that part of the south-east and that of those living in my home town of Sheffield. When I went back at weekends or for holidays, I saw that contrast very clearly in the real deprivation that people suffered. The biggest indicator was that a pub in the south-east would have people in it during the week, which would not be the case in the north.
	We still have regional disparities, but I am pleased to say that deprivation in my part of the world is nowhere near as bad. People have benefited greatly from the stability of the economy and the measures implemented by this Government. Since I was elected nearly two years ago, I have seen a real improvement in the local economy, especially in terms of small businesses starting up. Parades of shops with significant numbers of empty properties are now occupied, because people are confident about starting up a business and operating effectively in the economy. However, earlier on under the Labour Government some parts of the economy did better than my part of the world. We must address that disparity between the regions. I therefore welcome the establishment of the regional development agencies. I particularly welcome the fact that when they were consulted on many of the issues that were dealt with in the Budget, they focused their input on enterprise, innovation, skills and regulatory reform—four aspects that all hon. Members would agree are important to the development of the economy, especially the small business sector.
	It is crucial for the Government to encourage enterprise, not just take a laissez-faire approach that lets the market do what it will. In February, I was pleased to note that a survey by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor showed that of women in all the regions, those in Yorkshire are the most entrepreneurial. When I made that point previously in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is not here, remarked that the technical term was "lasses", so I should perhaps say that Yorkshire lasses are the most entrepreneurial of all women in the UK. However, that masks the fact that women generally are not as entrepreneurial as men: only half as many women as men see themselves as likely to go into business. Moreover, the highest level of entrepreneurial activity by men, which is in the east of England, is more than twice that of entrepreneurial Yorkshire lasses. It is enormously important that the Government do what they can to support small business creation. The same survey showed that job creation by small businesses is strong. It is estimated that 55 per cent. of start-up businesses each create up to 11 jobs. Many more people now believe that they have entrepreneurial skills; 43 per cent. think that they have the appropriate skills to start a business, compared with 40 per cent. in the previous year. In place of the rather bleak picture that was painted by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), we can see a much faster-developing and encouraging picture.
	Representing a Yorkshire constituency, in Sheffield, I particularly welcome the focus of resources on deprived areas, where traditionally people have not been so entrepreneurial, have not looked to develop their own businesses and, indeed, have not had the resources behind them in order to do so. As well as containing measures that will benefit all start-up businesses, the Finance Bill specifically identifies ways in which businesses in deprived areas can be supported. The extension of the Phoenix fund is intended to promote enterprise for disadvantaged groups and areas. That is supplemented by the development of enterprise areas, some of which are in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary explained how measures such as relief on corporation tax and first-year allowances will help start-up businesses.
	Once established, small businesses need to develop. I therefore welcome the Government's focus on innovation and their support for research and development. There are many ways in which businesses need to develop, and having met many representatives of small businesses in and around my constituency, I know that they are seeking that help and support, but sometimes feel that it is not so well advanced in our region for businesses of their nature. For example, people from Diva, a public relations company, told me that it was more difficult for them to develop the links and networks that they could build up if they were based in the south-east. That needs to be addressed further, not only through supportive mechanisms such as the business links programme, but through new mechanisms. In south Yorkshire, we have the benefit of objective 1 European funding, and strong developments are taking place as a result. Strong links between the regional development agency, business links and objective 1 are beginning to deliver many more benefits to small businesses.
	Also in south Yorkshire, in Doncaster, we have a company called Beta Technology Ltd., which is involved in helping businesses across Britain with technological solutions. Earlier in the debate, we discussed the importance of new technology and of developing, through research and development, different ways of delivering business solutions. When I recently went to visit the company, one of the interesting developments that I heard about was the way in which military technology can be applied in businesses to enable them to develop further. The company is channelling money from the European Union through to many businesses, making them stronger and more competitive and placing them at the cutting edge of the technology in their area of work, helping them to grow and ensuring that more people are employed. It is no surprise that the Budget was welcomed by the regional development agencies, whose involvement in the Budget processes was a new step. The process of dialogue with those agencies, which should be at the heart of the regions, is moving us forward.
	Of course, no discussion of small business would be complete without mentioning regulations—I am surprised that no hon. Member has done so. Small businesses in my communities are no different from those elsewhere. If one asked them, "Would you like more red tape or less red tape?", they would say, "Can we have a bit less red tape, please?", because nobody likes having lots of bureaucracy and regulations. We must recognise, however, that it is a matter of balance.
	The Government look to simplify company law whenever possible, especially for small businesses. They are making accounting procedures less onerous, but they are also ensuring that regulations that benefit overall business growth continue.
	Many regulations exist to make employment better and deal with social issues about which Labour Members care greatly, including the minimum wage, paternity and maternity leave and health and safety. They ensure that the work force is valued and that the people who come to work in a company are fit, healthy and able to have a proper work-life balance.

Mark Simmonds: Does the hon. Lady accept that many regulations deter employers from taking on more employees?

Meg Munn: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman cited many regulations that Conservative Members especially like to cite. However, many are traffic regulations or affect matters that do not impinge on businesses.
	When I visit small businesses in particular, they tell me that they come across specific problems, but because they have fewer than 25 employees, they do not encounter them often, hence they do not know where to go for advice. Big companies or local authorities have personnel departments and probably specialists who know what to do. Exactly the same problems affect employees in small businesses, but the support is not always available for them.

Andrew Love: My hon. Friend was far too kind in not reminding Conservative Members that the former right hon. Member for Henley, who claimed morning, noon and night that he would get rid of regulation, was responsible for the greatest increase in it.
	More than abolishing regulation, more than having access to finance and other support, small businesses want a good, stable economy, which the Government are providing.

Meg Munn: I agree. Small businesses value the low interest rates and knowing that they can continue to operate in a stable environment.
	Much advice exists, and making it available to small businesses is important. I therefore especially applaud the work of the Yorkshire and Humberside chamber of commerce, which is working with partners such as the regional development agencies, local authorities, local business partnerships and the Yorkshire Post. It has established a red tape-busting roadshow, which is making its way around the county, advising on a range of issues such as employment legislation, the minimum wage, paternity leave, stakeholder pensions, health and safety, business taxation and environment taxation to ensure that people who run small businesses know where to go to get the advice to help them understand what they need to do. Business people are no different from the rest of us. Things often sound worse than they are and knowing that clear advice is available and where to obtain it is important.

Barry Sheerman: In my hon. Friend's constituency, like mine, the entrepreneurial small business soon learns the access routes to information and grants. When there is money at the end of the rainbow, small businesses learn fast how to deal with what they would normally call red tape.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend makes a pointed comment, with which I agree. Small businesses learn what they need to do but that does not mean that it is not a good idea to ensure that people know about their responsibilities, which enable them to have a good, trained, healthy and happy work force. In the long run, that will increase their business profitability.
	Britain is moving in the right direction. The Budget, the Finance Bill and the measures that the Government have introduced not only this year but in previous years have made Britain a good place in which to start and run a business. As I made my way down to Westminster yesterday evening, I listened to a programme on Radio 4 on which a range of French people were interviewed. They were clear that Britain was a much better place in which to start a business and that the regulations were much simpler and more straightforward than on the continent.
	Small businesses have grown in my constituency. The Government support the growth and development of business and I welcome their acknowledgement that development is different in different regions. The regions must be given a key role in driving the agenda.

Michael Weir: The Chief Secretary opened the debate by describing the measure as a Bill for enterprise and fairness. I can only assume that he is reading a different copy of the Bill from mine. The fact that there is nothing in the measure to help Scotland's economy may explain the complete absence of Scottish Labour Members from this debate.
	The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), which has not been selected, sets out our view of this dog's breakfast of a Budget. It states:
	"It contains no proposals for amending the fiscal regime that will address its adverse effects on the Scottish economy, particularly as regards support for indigenous industries, and the widening disparity between the level of economic growth in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole."
	Although we have discussed the United Kingdom economy, we must bear in mind that the Scottish economy reacts differently in many ways.
	In his Budget statement, the Chancellor again cut his growth projections, increased his borrowing projections and ignored the needs of Scotland. Getting his sums wrong is nothing new. Between last year's Budget and this year's, he underestimated the UK's five-year deficit by an astonishing £48 billion. Two weeks ago, the National Audit Office pointed out that he had even got last year's deficit wrong by an additional £1 billion.
	The Bill does nothing to help Scotland. Under the Government's tenure, Scottish growth has been half that of the rest of the UK. Scotland needs genuine powers to enable us to tackle the fundamental problems of the Scottish economy. That is all the more reason for giving the Scottish Parliament full financial independence—something at which the Bill does not even hint. That is not only the view of the Scottish National party. Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell has backed Scottish independence. He said:
	"It could create the conditions that encourage educated labour supply, high quality education and necessary public works"
	as well as encouraging "direct foreign investment". That is not currently happening in Scotland.
	In his introductory remarks, the Chief Secretary also said that the economy had experienced 43 quarters of growth. That is not true in Scotland. At the tail end of 2001, the Scottish economy went into recession. However, in the Budget, the Chancellor considered only UK growth forecasts, which he dropped to 2 per cent. Given that Scottish growth has been running at approximately half the rate of UK growth as a whole, that means that Scottish growth is likely to be around 1 per cent. at best.
	In an earlier intervention, a Labour Member talked about the recession in certain manufacturing industries and about the old industries, I think in Yorkshire and Humberside. In Scotland, however, we have seen the disturbing phenomenon of the new industries—the so-called sunrise industries—also going into recession, with the closures at Motorola and Compaq, and in various other areas. These policies have affected the old industries in Scotland under both Labour and Tory Administrations, and we are now seeing the same thing happening in the sunrise industries.
	How can we trust the growth figures quoted by the Chancellor and his continued optimistic growth forecasts for 2004–05, when we cannot even be sure about his predictions from last November?

Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: I will certainly give way, as someone from Scotland has deigned to turn up.

Ann McKechin: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that, in Glasgow, part of which I have the privilege to represent, the growth rate in jobs last year was the largest in any city in the United Kingdom? Jobs are flooding into the city and into the whole of Scotland, where the unemployment rate has consistently been going downwards. Is not the key to the issue the fact that full employment for Scotland has been achieved by a Labour Government? Is that not why the hon. Gentleman's party was so remarkably unsuccessful last week?

Michael Weir: That is a bit much, considering that the hon. Lady's own party had the wonderful distinction of losing six seats in the Scottish Parliament—three of them to us—and losing its enterprise Minister. That does not suggest that the Scottish people had a fantastic view of the Scottish economy under Labour. What she is saying is simply not the case. She says that there is full employment in Scotland, yet Scottish unemployment is the highest of all the countries in the UK, with 24,000 jobs having been lost in the past year, and 100,000 people in part-time or temporary work unable to find a full-time job. It is simply not true to say that there is full employment.
	The Scottish economy has been underperforming, with low long-term growth, and the Bill does absolutely nothing to address that. If Scotland had matched the growth of the UK since 1975, Scots would be £2,000 richer per person, and if we had matched the growth of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Scots would be £4,600 per person richer. But if we had managed to match the growth of other normal, small independent countries, we would be more than £5,000 per person richer.
	Rather than improving, the situation is getting worse. Scotland has grown at half the UK rate since Labour came to power in 1997, and at one third of that rate since the Labour-Liberal Executive came to power in 1999. In fact, since Labour took office, Scottish growth has been the lowest in the European Union: 16th out of 16. Scotland can do a lot better than that, but this Government have made no positive impact on the lamentable record of the last six years. This Chancellor's record on improving Scotland's growth rate is one of abject failure.
	Addressing the appalling rate of growth in Scotland is not a matter of abstract macro-economics. Having and maintaining a high level of growth is fundamental to making our country the best that it can be for all those who live there. With strong economic growth, we can generate the additional resources needed to maintain and improve our public services, and afford additional police officers to patrol our streets, making Scotland a safer place to live. With strong economic growth, our businesses flourish, employing additional people and paying them more.

Andrew Tyrie: Many might argue that the Scots are already getting more than their fair share of the slug from the Treasury, in order to fund those public services. Does the hon. Gentleman think that further increases in those resources for public services, or cuts back to the per capita level that we see in England, would be more likely to stimulate the growth that he wants to see in Scotland?

Michael Weir: More investment would stimulate that growth, but the hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that Scotland is receiving more. If he studies the Barnett formula—the Barnett squeeze—he will see that there is a fast-eroding differential between Scotland and England. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Parliament needs full fiscal independence. If the hon. Gentleman adheres to the theory that he has just put forward, I should have thought that he would support full fiscal independence for the Scottish Parliament, to allow Scotland to raise its own taxes and decide its own spending levels without having access to the Barnett formula.
	The Finance Bill contains no measures to allow Scotland to reach its potential for economic growth, and that is why the Scottish National party cannot support it today. But, as I said, Scotland could do better if released from the constraints of measures such as this Bill. Even within the European Union, small nations have outperformed large nations. The small nations' average is five times the growth of the Scottish economy. The Bill does nothing to help the Scottish economy become more competitive. Labour in Scotland has presided over a business rates regime that is higher than in the rest of the UK, and Labour in London insists that corporation tax should be the same in Scotland as in the rest of the UK despite compelling reasons for cutting it in areas where that would be a spur to the economy. Those are but two examples of Scotland being less competitive than it should be.
	Even within the current British Union, there is no reason for such centralised fiscal powers. Polls show that 70 per cent. of Scots want financial independence, and there is increasing support for that across the political spectrum. The Principals of St Andrews, Abertay and Glasgow Caledonian universities, and the historian Tom Devine, have all spoken in favour of independence, as has the Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Mundell.
	When we look at the detail of the Bill, we must ask what has been done for industries that are important to Scotland. We have heard that the Chancellor did indeed freeze whisky duty, but whisky is still subject to disproportionately high taxation. I think it was the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) who mentioned the difficulties caused by treatment of stock for corporation tax purposes in the Scotch whisky industry, which will more than wipe out any benefit from the frozen duty.
	Having shocked the oil industry with last year's 10 per cent. tax increase, this year the Chancellor finally did one of the two things for which the SNP called last year, ending the differential taxation on pipeline infrastructure. Old pipelines such as those at St Fergus incur company tax at 70 per cent., while new ones like those at Bacton are taxed at 40 per cent. and the interconnector is taxed at 30 per cent.
	Full use of the infrastructure is in the interests of Scotland, which has many pipelines with capacity, and of the Treasury, which otherwise loses revenue on what companies will declare as construction costs. The SNP has campaigned for the tax change, which will come into effect next year and will be backdated to 1 January 2004. This is a victory for the party, and I congratulate the Chancellor on finally seeing sense.
	Unfortunately, however, the Chancellor's flash of sense did not extend to considering changes for the purposes of exploration and appraisal. Such changes are very necessary, as exploration and appraisal numbers have plummeted over the last five years. Last year's sudden changes have not helped, as the SNP predicted at the time. If we are to support an industry that is essential to north-east Scotland, including my constituency, we must bear that in mind. In a press statement the Chancellor said he would consider the point, but nothing has been done. Given that only 16 exploration wells were drilled last year, we need urgent action. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted,
	"government policy in this area still seems to be driven too much by short term revenue needs or changes in the oil price".
	Nothing in the Bill will help Scotland's rural economy. I asked the Chief Secretary earlier about the impact on small businesses. He spoke at length about corporation tax and how it would help small companies, but in my part of Scotland—indeed, in Scotland as a whole—the vast majority of small businesses consist of self-employed people or partnerships. They pay not corporation tax but income tax. The Government seem to be aiming their help for small businesses at those that are incorporated, while doing little or nothing for those that are not.
	The Chief Secretary cited various minor tinkerings that might help unincorporated businesses, but many such businesses complain to me that they feel pressurised to go for incorporation in order to reduce their tax bills. It would be a great pity if they did so, because in many areas self-employed small business men and partnerships constitute the driving force of the local economy. Incorporation would cause them numerous difficulties along with the possible advantages. Accountants are telling such clients, however, that they must consider incorporation. Given that they pay income tax, I realise that it can be difficult to differentiate, but I think the Government should consider the matter.
	The Bill imposes an annual uprating of fuel duty, but defers it until October. As the Chief Secretary will know, that is a huge issue in rural Scotland: the increase will hit both businesses and individuals there very hard. Purely using price mechanisms to cut demand, whether for green reasons or otherwise, will surely hit hardest those least able to afford the increase; yet nothing is done in this Bill to soften the blow to rural Scotland.
	In his Budget speech on 9 April, the Chancellor said:
	"Owing to the recent high and volatile level of oil prices as a result of military conflict in Iraq, I have decided to defer the 1.28p a litre annual revalorisation of fuel duties until six months from now—1 October—and I will legislate to this effect. And if the current international uncertainties and volatility remain, I will not proceed with the change at all."—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 278.]
	Yet clause 4 merely states that the provision will come into effect on 1 October; there is no indication as to how the Chancellor will decide whether to impose that rise. I ask the Chief Secretary—or whoever else winds up for the Government—to tell us at what level of oil price or fuel price the Chancellor would consider the increase should not be imposed? Or is it the case that this is just window dressing, and that the increase will be imposed come what may? Does the wording of the Bill indicate that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the "uncertainties" have already gone away?
	We heard earlier in the debate about the working families tax credit and the benefits that it brings to many people. I do not know what other Members are experiencing in their constituencies, but in mine, although the WFTC might indeed be of benefit, unfortunately there is great difficulty in actually getting it, because of the chaos in the system. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions; indeed, in last Monday's statement it was pointed out that a special hotline would be created for MPs. In fact, I received a letter this morning, giving me that hotline number. So my office telephoned the hotline about the many complaints that we have received. To be fair, we finally got through after several attempts, and we managed to get the necessary information and sort out a couple of the problems.
	However, we were then told that it would probably be a couple of weeks before the money came through, despite the fact that some of my constituents were getting increasingly desperate and had had no money for four weeks. Then—lo and behold—the system crashed yet again. So even on the MPs' hotline, the system is prone to crashing. Although that issue is perhaps not covered by this Bill, it relates to the income tax and finances of ordinary people in this country and in many areas of Scotland. It must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, because it has dragged on for almost six weeks, which is totally unacceptable.
	As I said at the outset, this year's Budget and the Bill before us offer nothing for Scotland and totally fail to address the real problems of the Scottish economy. We will not support the Bill this evening.

Kali Mountford: Before getting to the main subject of my remarks—my constituency and the economic development of west Yorkshire and Yorkshire as a whole—I want to begin by returning to certain issues that have already been debated.
	Opposition Members seemed to suffer the amnesia that they usually suffer in debates such as this, and I want to put the record right regarding some of the remarks that were made, especially those on administrative waste. It is still not clear to me whether the Conservatives would cut a fifth of waste, a fifth of public services or a fifth of administrators.

George Osborne: The answer is a fifth of waste.

Kali Mountford: If that is what they are planning to do, that is a great achievement, is it not?
	Let us look at what the Conservatives did in office—they cannot shy away from that period—to deal with administrative waste. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke about the collapse of an IT system; sadly, in government such things are not new. The investments made in IT by the Home Office and the former Department of Social Security were disasters, and both occurred under the Conservatives. What did the Conservatives do about public expenditure year on year? This Government have moved to three-year—in some cases, five-year—rolling programmes, thereby enabling us to know what will be invested in each Government Department. That saves money, because investment in Government Departments is planned for the long term. There is none of the rash spending at the end of the year, whereby representatives of each Department went to the Government and said, "All the money has been spent, and obviously it has been spent wisely, because it has all gone." The idea was that, with a little luck, they could spend enough to go slightly over, and put in a bid for a bit more for next year. If that is wise spending, it is not what a typical housewife or ordinary family would advise doing with a budget. Implementing a three-year rolling programme is a wise way of getting rid of waste.
	On the subject of waste and sound investment, we should consider some of the reforms that Conservative Members overlooked. They made great play of health policy this evening, but primary care trusts have made great savings in my constituency—on drugs budgets, all aspects of screening and the administration of health. The savings have been ploughed back into patient care, which has experienced record investment. It is not investment in nothing; I can say precisely where it went.
	Some of the capital expenditure invested in my constituency was an absolute necessity. Equipment in some hospitals was at the point of collapse. A couple of days after the new Labour Government took office in 1997, we would have been lucky if operations could have been undertaken without a sticking plaster over the dilapidated equipment. My constituency has, however, now had a new hospital, new screening equipment, and record numbers of nurses and new consultants. There is now such competition in the health sector that it is sometimes difficult to train people in time to take up the new jobs that have been created. That is not spending for spending's sake, but spending in order to improve health.
	Neonatal intensive care is another important issue in my constituency. If we want to assess whether a community is prospering, figures on mortality are highly significant, and neonatal mortality is perhaps most important to families. Great improvements have been built on investment in new technologies and new treatments that did not exist or were not used before 1997. Such advances in medical and health care are important. People are being treated in a way that was not possible before, because neither the equipment nor the specialist nursing staff existed. That is the sort of investment that we want, and I can see it happening in my constituency.
	No two places in the country are alike. In fact, no two wards in my constituency are alike, so it is not surprising that economic development has to be considered on a local and regional basis; talk of a north-south divide is long past its sell-by date. Holme Valley South in my constituency is rated 6,299 out of 8,414 wards, whereas Crosland Moor rates only 861st. The two wards are a microcosm of the overall picture. The well-off people in Holme Valley South earn, on average, £28,000 a year, whereas the average national income per family is £23,000 a year and the average for Kirklees, where my constituency is based, is £21,000 a year. That provides an index of relative prosperity. In Crosland Moor, however, average earnings are about £19,500.
	In what sort of jobs and industry are people engaged in those two areas? In Crosland Moor, far too many people—7.5 per cent.— are not engaged in any industry at all because they are not in work. In the rest of my constituency, only about 2.3 per cent. of the work force are unemployed. We have clear divides not just between north and south, or between Yorkshire, Scotland and elsewhere, but within constituencies. There are huge divides between what people earn and how well off they are.
	In looking at public investment, we should look at Crosland Moor, the poorest ward in my constituency and one of the poorest in the country. Investment there has been made in the public sector and, specifically and most effectively, in schools. In 1997, the exam results in schools in Crosland Moor showed that only 28 per cent. of pupils were attaining five GCSEs at A to C. Now, 58 per cent. of pupils are achieving those essential GCSEs to help them develop their careers. That increase is mirrored exactly by the amount of investment made in the area.
	We should make no apologies for the fact that there has been greater investment in Moor End high school, which is now a technical college and has achieved specialist status, than in Holme Valley South school. The reason is clear. Some 68 per cent. of pupils in that school attain the levels of achievement I mentioned, and it is wise and sensible not to leave some people behind in our economy. Why should pupils in Moor End high school be left with no support? That investment is vital to give people the chance that they deserve so that they can break the cycle of unemployment.
	The vast majority of people in my area work in manufacturing and, overall, they earn less than those working in the service sector. In Holme Valley South, the richest of my wards, almost everybody—apart from 6 per cent.—works in services. That tells us something about how people earn, and we can then look at how they spend their money.
	My constituency has a close relationship with the textiles industry. Recently, we had one steel business, but, sadly, Bekaerts, the Dutch company concerned, decided that the underwiring for ladies' undergarments did not need to be made in Britain. I am afraid that ladies will no longer be able to buy British underwired bras. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I like to be upheld by the British or not, but we will see what the quality of the new underwired bras of the future will be. The company took the business not to China or elsewhere in Asia, but to Europe; indeed, the company produces most of its wiring in Holland and Germany. It did not do so because there is less red tape there; indeed, we could argue that there is more.
	We must look deeply at different industries and sectors. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) needs to do the same when he looks at some of the new businesses that he said had fled our shores. Some of the companies in the "micro-bubble" may have over-extended and over-anticipated sales. There is now a different scenario for the mobile phone industry, for example, and for others that are easy to move around the world. The textiles industry is not portable; it uses cumbersome machinery that cannot be picked up.
	I would argue that, in most of the wards that depend heavily on textiles, every single person has found new employment when a factory closure has been announced. We could argue that it does not matter as long as people are in high-quality and well-paid jobs. We might argue that we should not be bothered whether we have a textiles industry at all. However, I think that we should be bothered. We need a diverse economy. That is why we need a Yorkshire plan.
	Last Friday, I spoke at a conference held by the Transport and General Workers Union and the textile employers confederation. The other speaker was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury, so I was in good company. The conference underlined what I think the Budget should be about—a regional response to economic growth.
	We need a plan for Yorkshire. The regional development agencies made a start. I was heavily critical of Yorkshire Forward in its early years. I did not feel that it took textiles seriously. Its attitude was familiar: as long as there is some sort of job, why should people be bothered? Conversely, the impression was given that that was not an issue for people who were not in objective 1 or 2 areas.
	I think that we should be concerned about all areas. Britain should not be a country of several speeds. We should look at investing in all areas, so that people in my constituency run at one speed—the fastest and best speed, so that that they can be part of everything.
	For me, that means that it is not good enough for industry to say that corporation tax cuts do not affect people, and that the grant systems are too complicated to make applications worthwhile. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), my next-door neighbour, said that new businesses apply very quickly for grants. However, textile firms are in a very old trade, and they do not want to apply for grants at all, mainly because they feel that they do not want to give up control of their businesses.
	The European country with the best growth in textiles is Italy. The Italian product is no better than the British product, but its image is different. The Italian way of business is more collaborative, and British business cannot afford to stay as it has always been, producing the same old cloth with no regard to what customers want. Some Ministers have fallen foul of the usual question—do people wear British clothing?—but manufacturers must not blame customers for not wanting British products. They must look at what they should be producing.
	There are good examples in Europe. It is not true that the Italians can produce something better than we can, or that they somehow bend and break all the state aid rules. Using collaborative methods, it is perfectly possible to invest in industries throughout the supply chain. Producers clustering together can have a real impact on the economy, enabling textiles to be part of Britain's future prosperity.
	By using that approach to release some of the energies in the RDAs and allow them to do more of what they have been doing, I believe that a real turnaround could be achieved. In my area, the RDA has invested £963,000 in the Huddersfield textile centre of excellence. It has also invested a further £500,000 in a new building for the centre. That money is being spent on new units, and on securing more collaboration between universities and businesses, to ensure that the designers of the future stay in the north and do not automatically go to Milan, London or New York.
	We need people with the necessary skills to stay at home, and to feel that they have a future. Grants have been made available for new start-up businesses, so that they can put their energies into traditional factories run by traditional owners. The newcomers will be able to set out the new way forward for textiles. Although the traditional woollen cloth was very good and of high quality, we need to provide some of the things that people want to buy.
	In addition, there are new textiles that can be used in the infrastructure of machinery. Reference is often made to the textiles used in the computer industry, but they can be used even in the car industry. I do not only mean as part of the upholstery, either, as a car chassis can be made from fibre. We have an opportunity to take what is old, invest in it and turn it into something new. If we allow the RDA to develop, invest in it and use it in a way that suits Yorkshire and lets Yorkshire people decide for themselves what is best for their economy, every part of Colne Valley can start to move at one speed. It will not be the Crosland Moor, going down hill speed, but will grow faster and faster so that there are Holme Valley Souths all over Yorkshire.

George Osborne: I draw the House's attention to the interests that I have registered. With a father who sells wallpaper and a mother who runs a food shop, I am living testimony to the fact that we are a nation of shopkeepers, although anyone who reads the "Society" section of The Guardian might think we are becoming a nation of public sector administrators.
	I have listened with interest to the debate. This is the first Finance Bill in which I shall be involved, and the Standing Committee will be the first Finance Bill Committee on which I will sit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I thought, did a brilliant job of demolishing parts of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say in Committee. I was not so impressed with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) who gave us a bit of a Whip's attack-the-Tories handout. I am not sure whether he is on the Committee, but I hope that he is not so that I do not have to listen to that sort of rubbish for four weeks.
	In preparing for the Committee, I went on Friday to see some small businesses in my constituency. In the village of Over Peover, a gentleman named Reg Lawrence took me on a tour, as he has done, he says, for every Member for the area, notorious and less so, since the 1960s. He introduced me to small businesses that are struggling to make a living. Small business people there would have listened with incredulity to what the Chief Secretary said about what the Government have done to make life easier for them. To a person, they told me that they are struggling under a mound of red tape, extra regulations and taxation. They simply would not accept the rosy picture that the Chief Secretary sought to paint in his lengthy speech.
	For example, I talked to Frank Rudd, a tomato grower in Over Peover, who has several acres under greenhouses. Anyone who wants to grow tomatoes commercially has to heat the greenhouses. As a result, Mr. Rudd has been stung by the climate change levy, which has cost him hundreds of pounds. When the rebate ends, his bill will go up further. That levy does nothing to protect the environment or reduce his heating bill. All it means is that supermarkets in Britain are more likely to buy tomatoes from countries that do not have a climate change levy. It undermines Mr. Rudd's ability to employ people in my constituency, and it has done nothing for its stated purpose.
	Incidentally, my constituency also contains Britain's largest consultancy on nuclear power stations, which employs 1,000 people and has built every nuclear power station in the country. It regularly points out to me that if the levy really were a climate change levy, it would not be applied to the nuclear power industry. Whether one likes or hates that industry, one has to agree that it does not produce the greenhouse gases that the levy is supposed to tackle.
	Reg Lawrence took me to his flower-growing business. He produces 5 million chrysanthemums a year, and Members may have given some of his flowers to their loved ones. It is an impressive business, but he is being hit by extra taxation, new environmental regulations on the use of compost and other such things. Now, regulations and taxes may, in themselves, be good things. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who is no longer in her place, said as much in her speech. The regulations that we impose on business may, individually, deliver socially desirable things, and the hon. Lady talked about paternity and maternity leave and so on, which we all think are good things. I am about to be a father myself and am looking forward to the paternity leave that the Whips will doubtless give me when the time comes.
	We must accept, however, that those things come at a cost to business. Like many Members of Parliament, I sent a survey before the Budget to all the businesses in my constituency, large and small. I asked them what they felt about what was going to be in the Budget, what they wanted in the Budget, and what they felt about what the Government had done. The results were startling. Of the hundreds of businesses that responded, 88 per cent. say that they now spend more time dealing with Government regulation than they did five years ago. Not a single business said that it spent less time dealing with regulation now than it did five years ago.
	I noticed that, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced yet another, in effect, deregulation taskforce. He said that he was going to get outside experts to look at regulation and that he was going to hold Government Departments to account for their regulation. However, I think that we need to judge this Chancellor by his record. In the last full year, 2002, the Government introduced 3,839 new regulations.

Paul Boateng: indicated dissent.

George Osborne: The Chief Secretary shakes his head. Those figures were provided by the Library.

David Laws: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been keeping in close contact with his local businesses. What are the three main regulations that he would like the Government to abolish?

George Osborne: This parliamentary business is not time limited, so here we go. This is a classic example. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and a permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry appeared before us the other day. He told us about something called the warm fuel regulation.
	There are a lot of independent petrol retailers in the country. In the old days, a few years ago, the tanker would turn up and the independent petrol retailer would undo the top and put in the dip-stick to see how much petrol he had been given from the refinery, and that is how much he would pay for. Now, under new regulations, it has been decided that lifting the top off the petrol tank releases gas fumes into the environment and causes environmental damage—nothing like any motorway service station on a busy day, nothing like the hundreds of thousands of cars that fill up every day, but it has been decided that independent petrol retailers cannot open the top of their petrol tank and they cannot put the dip-stick in. That means that because petrol shrinks as it cools down on the journey from the refinery, they pay over the odds because they are charged for the amount that leaves the refinery rather than the amount that reaches them, and believe it or not, according to the DTI, the cost of that to the independent petrol retailing industry is £90 million, which is putting a huge number of independent petrol retailers out of business.
	When the permanent secretary was before the Public Accounts Committee, I asked to see the documents that were produced when this environmental regulation was proposed and I asked for documents showing whether any assessment was made of its impact on the independent petrol retailing industry. Those documents were eventually produced. Of course those involved did not have a clue that the regulations would cost the industry £90 million, and they have no plans to get rid of them.
	That is an example of one regulation off the top of my head. Would the hon. Gentleman like two more?

David Laws: Yes.

George Osborne: As Ministers say, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with two other examples. However, I am glad that I have got off my chest the warm petrol regulations, which are typical of the kind of thing that the Government do, and I do not mean that in a partisan sense. Regulations come out of the bowels of Government Departments and people have no idea in Whitehall of the impact that they will have.
	The Government have regulated an enormous amount and I have detailed how business people in my constituency feel about that. Of course, the Government have also increased taxation by a huge amount. Again this Finance Bill will introduce more taxation. It is not a blockbusting, tax-increasing Finance Bill of the kind that we have seen before from this Government, but the stealth taxes are there if one looks carefully enough.
	Clause 130 freezes personal allowances for income tax for people under 65. It is a classic stealth tax trick and of course will increase the tax burden for families. Clause 14 contains an above-inflation increase in vehicle excise duty. The duty on red diesel, which of course will hit the agricultural sector—one of the worst affected sectors of the economy in the past few years—is increasing by 38 per cent.
	I was particularly interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) was telling me about the reforms to stamp duty on leases, because if he is right, there will be a huge tax increase on many businesses: high street retailers such as Dixons—

Mark Simmonds: And B & Q.

George Osborne: And B & Q, and Borders. I understand that the Treasury says that that is tax neutral, yet the industry says that the cost will be £450 million, so someone is right and someone is wrong, and, no doubt, we will find out.
	Of course, the Finance Bill comes at a time when we are also being hit by the national insurance increase. Again, in my survey of businesses, I found that 15 per cent. of businesses in my constituency said that the national insurance increase would lead to redundancies in their businesses and 47 per cent. said that it would lead to a slow-down in their recruitment. People should be aware that such taxes have a direct impact on employment in our constituencies.
	I note in passing that the CBI issued a warning today that, if current trends continue, up to 86,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing industry in the first half of this year alone. That is particularly worrying for my constituents, as the CBI says that many of the jobs will be lost in the north-west.
	It strikes me that, in the 1980s, the Labour party did not really understand macro-economics. Indeed, I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), and, as far as I can work out, he still blames the gnomes of Zurich for the problems that the Wilson and Callaghan Governments ran into. He has not learned the proper lessons of macro-economics.
	The single greatest achievement of this Labour Government was to put the levers of macro-economic power out of their reach by giving the Bank of England independence, and it was a jolly good thing that they did. The problem now, however, is that the Labour party does not understand micro-economics. Labour Members do not understand what it takes to run a successful business. They do not understand that regulation and taxation undermine the ability of companies to compete.
	The Chancellor lamented in his Budget the fact that Britain and Europe still had a productivity gap of 20 to 30 per cent. with the US economy. He said that we need to learn from America about innovation, competition and enterprise. I very much agree with him, but, frankly, with billions of pounds in extra taxes, thousands of extra regulations and a Budget that makes it more and more difficult for British businesses to compete, the Chancellor does not seem to want to learn the lesson.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. David Osborne.

David Cameron: That mistake is frequently made, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, taxation has thrown my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and me together because we both live in the same part of west London during the week and, to avoid paying two congestion charges, we travel to work together, saving on pollution.

Meg Munn: Get on your bikes.

David Cameron: We will obviously get on our bikes when the summer is here in full.
	It is a delight to follow my hon. Friend in the debate, and I very much agree with what he had to say.
	I should draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a consultant to Carlton television—the media company where I worked for seven years before being elected to the House—and I am a non-executive director of a company called Urbium, which owns bars and restaurants. I say that without any sense of shame.
	All of us who sit on the Back Benches spend a lot of time in our constituencies, seeing where the money that the economy generates is spent. We go to hospitals, schools and police stations—all incredibly useful experiences. We also visit a lot of businesses, but I find that there is nothing quite like spending a few hours every now and again in a business, looking at its problems and the costs that it faces, trying to understand more about the market that it is in and what is happening to that vital thing in the economy—sentiment.
	I do not say that the Government have got it all wrong on the economy. Giving independence to the Bank of England was the right step, and it has had a positive effect. I repeat what I said in an intervention, I think, on the speech made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). Our economy has been growing for almost 10 years, and credit for that should go to the last Government and the current Government.
	I do not say that everything in the Budget is wrong. The abolition of bingo taxation and the pension changes while people stay in hospital are hugely positive, and I support them, but, overall, this is the wrong Finance Bill for this time. The real test for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to make popular decisions when things are going well, but to make the right decisions when things start to go badly. The great tragedy is that prudence has gone out the window, perhaps just when it will be needed most. For the first few years, the present incumbent was prudent and careful; now he seems to be taking great risks.
	I shall explain why I believe that this is the wrong Finance Bill by answering four questions. First, why are taxes going up when the economy is in a fragile state? There is no doubt that taxes are going up—one has only to read to page 257 of the Red Book, but when one gets there, one finds that taxes are going up by more than £30 billion in the current year. Predominantly, those increases are in national insurance and income tax, so consumers are being hit hard in the pocket at a time when the economy is fragile. There can be no doubt that the economy is fragile. As has been pointed out, the current savings ratio is very low, and the economy has been propped up by consumers borrowing a great deal of money and spending in the high street. We have a many-speed economy: manufacturing has been in recession for many quarters, the property market is much more fragile than it has been, and one has only to listen to Government forecasts for economic growth to understand the extent of that fragility, because those forecasts keep being downgraded, particularly for the current year. The Government are therefore putting up taxes at a time when the economy is fragile.
	Secondly, why are taxes going up when public service reform has not been implemented? I remember the Chancellor writing that great article in The Sun in which he said that there would be not another penny for the national health service until it had been reformed. Today, however, an extra £200 million has been spent—and much more besides—without there being a statement in the House, in a deal to try to get support for the Government's Bill tomorrow. I do not say that the extra money invested in public services has not led to any improvements. It has led to improvements: one cannot physically spend that much money without some improvements. In my constituency in Oxfordshire, however, the police service in the Thames Valley has not a single extra policeman compared with 1997, because it cannot retain them.
	On the national health service, the last time I looked, my local trust had a shortage of more than 400 nurses. As for education, I have been inundated with letters from primary and secondary school teachers talking about having to deficit-budget this year, having to cut back and having to reduce the number of classes and increase class sizes. I therefore cannot see the level of improvements about which Labour Members have spoken. We are therefore putting up taxes at a time when the Government have given no proof that that money is being spent properly.
	Thirdly, why are taxes being put up nationally when taxes are going up so sharply locally? All Members, I am sure, have spent time during the last month canvassing for the local elections. On virtually every doorstep in west Oxfordshire, the council tax and the 17 per cent. increase that people were having to pay, was raised. When people look in their pay packets this month, however, they will see a substantial increase in national insurance contributions and one of the most regressive taxes, which hits the low-paid significantly—the restriction of allowances. Taxes are therefore being put up nationally and locally at the same time.
	Fourthly, if taxes are going up locally and nationally, why is debt going up so rapidly in this country? We are now at the end of a 10-year cycle of economic growth, yet this year—one would have thought that, at the end of a period of growth, one would be paying back debt—the Chancellor is to borrow £24 billion. If we add up the planned public sector borrowing requirement over the next four years, he will borrow £81 billion. That is a huge amount of debt to amass when one is predicting, as he is, economic growth of 3 per cent. next year and 3 per cent. the year after. When growth is on that scale, one should not borrow at that level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said clearly, the Government completely misunderstand the role of macro-economic and micro-economic policy.
	Lord Lawson, in what I think was the most important economic speech in the past 20 years, said that the role of macro-economic policy should not be, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s, to try to demand-manage the level of unemployment: it should be about controlling inflation and giving stability. He said that micro-economic policy, which in the 1960s and 1970s was all about controlling inflation using such things as price controls, income policies and wages boards—thank God that they have gone—should promote high levels of employment and growth and improve the supply side.
	The Government are getting both policies wrong. Their macro-economic policy will not provide the stability that we need because we are borrowing and taxing to a great extent while the economy is fragile. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton about their micro-economic policy and, like him, I have conducted a survey. Every business one speaks to says that there are huge quantities of red tape and many new taxes and costs. They are not all the Treasury's fault—I give Ministers that—because one of the biggest complaints is about the increases in employers' liability insurance and professional indemnity insurance, much of which is due to no win, no fee litigation. However, the Treasury has done nothing to address those problems.
	My survey showed that 85 per cent. of businesses were spending more time on regulation than they did in 1997; almost half spent five or more hours a week. When the Government think about their Budget and how they raise taxes, they must consider whether they are making it easier for businesses to grow and employ people. We will have a sustainable high level of employment if we make it easier for one person to employ another. Representatives of small businesses, especially very small businesses, who visit my surgery tell me that they have no ambition to grow any more because the Government treat them like benefit offices, because the pay-as-you-earn regime is so complicated, because of the gold plating of European Union directives and because of all the extra costs and requirements that are piled on them. The Government should concentrate on those issues but they have instead produced an incredibly long and complex Finance Bill with 447 pages, 214 clauses and 43 schedules, despite the fact that most people agreed that the Budget was fairly dull.
	The one message that should be taken from the debate is that it is wrong to raise taxes on the scale that the Government propose at a time when the economy is fragile. The Chancellor's reputation is well past its peak. If his forecasts prove to be wrong once again, businesses in our constituencies will pay dearly for his mistakes.

Stephen O'Brien: I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
	We have had an illuminating debate in which well-informed and thoughtful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have thrown light on the dark recesses of the Finance Bill and the Chancellor's Budget. Far from being a Budget of enterprise and fairness, as the Chief Secretary claimed, it and the Bill will be deeply damaging to enterprise and business and unfair to the people in this country who are least able to bear the Chancellor's tax hikes.
	Fascinatingly, the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) told us about support for small businesses in their regions, and I salute them for raising that point. They suggested that the 447 pages of the complex Bill would diminish regulation and help such businesses. However, they managed to make their speeches without referring to the Chancellor's proposals for regional pay bargaining, although that is hardly a surprise.
	We shall not forget the intervention made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) during the speech made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke for the Scottish National party. Amazingly, and perhaps to the surprise of her constituents, she suggested that Glasgow is outside the United Kingdom. We had not realised that she supported the agenda of the hon. Member for Angus.
	By contrast, all who were in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made his speech would have been struck by his clear and incisive critique of the Bill. We must hope that his experience and wisdom will, for once, make the Government listen. Assuming that the Bill receives its Second Reading, we hope that they will amend it in Committee so that it reflects and benefits from his outstanding contribution. We hope that they will join his parallel universe rather than carrying on in theirs.
	Yet again, the Government have produced a Finance Bill that provides the detail that the Chancellor was reluctant to mention in his Budget speech when he had to admit to the House that he had got all his figures wrong. At the end of November he was forced to admit that his forecasts on growth were wrong, his forecasts on revenue were wrong, his forecasts on borrowing were wrong and his forecasts on his deficit were wrong. On Budget day he was back at the Dispatch Box to admit yet again that his forecasts on growth, delivered barely four months ago, were wrong; that his forecasts on revenue yet again were wrong; that his forecasts on borrowing yet again were wrong; and that his forecasts on his deficit yet again were wrong. But it did not stop there.
	Just a fortnight after the Budget we saw further failures in the Chancellor's supposed powers of forecasting. Official statistics showed that public sector net borrowing in the year to the end of March surged to £25.2 billion compared with the £24 billion figure that the Chancellor forecast in his Budget speech—more than £1 billion out in the space of just two weeks. It is hardly surprising that official and highly respected independent bodies are queuing up to contradict the Budget's central arithmetic. The Office for National Statistics has contradicted the Chancellor's borrowing figures and released lower than expected growth figures. The OECD has questioned the Chancellor's future growth predictions. The ITEM Club has warned that the Chancellor's numbers are "wildly optimistic". Indeed, its analysis suggests that the Treasury will need to raise £10 billion in additional tax revenues to cover the shortfall—a shocking £170 per head of UK population. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has predicted that public sector net borrowing will approach £40 billion in 2005–06 compared with the Government forecast of £23 billion.
	If that is right, the Chancellor will be forced to explain yet again to the House how he got it so wrong and put up taxes again. As a result of the failures of this increasingly discredited Chancellor, there will already be more pain tomorrow unless we take action during the Bill's passage to end Labour's agenda of tax and spend and fail, as devastatingly demonstrated in the typically broad and deep speech of convincing cogency delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
	There have been five Budgets and 53 tax rises under Labour. This Finance Bill adds even more to that list, the damaging effects of which were brought to light so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in a well-targeted speech. They include a 35 per cent. rise in red diesel duty for farmers, an extension of the IR35 stealth tax and above inflation increases in car tax. We have had six Budgets and 60 tax rises under Labour.
	Let us consider the Bill's specific provisions, which the Chief Secretary certainly did not. He was long on words, giving wave after wave of assertions, but there was a complete absence of detail even when pressed. In his attempt to support his own Finance Bill, he was an evidence-free zone. Last year the Government encouraged sole traders to incorporate by introducing lower corporation tax rates for small companies. The Government were fully aware during last year's debate on the Finance Bill that the interaction of lower corporation tax rates and dividend planning would provide tax advantages for incorporated businesses. None the less, they introduced the legislation without amendment. That legislation was relied on and subsequently acted on by a number of individuals who incorporated. Now, only a year later, on the grounds of tax avoidance, this Finance Bill is proposing legislation that will tax some of those individuals as if they had not incorporated at all. Those measures are not targeted at wealthy tax planners; they affect domestic workers, such as gardeners—they could even hit butlers, which I am sure will give the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) cause for worry.
	Normal taxpayers who relied on the Government's legislation in good faith will be affected. Not only is the Treasury treating them like tax avoiders, but it is trying to introduce the anti-avoidance legislation in such a way that the individuals concerned will have to submit two self-assessment returns for this tax year properly to reflect their tax affairs. So those individuals who were encouraged by the Government to incorporate will be left with the increased burden of corporate regulation, no tax incentives and considerable complexity in self-assessing their tax affairs.
	Do the Chief Secretary and the Paymaster General recall the Red Book strapline just a month ago? Is this the way in which to build economic strength and social justice? Hidden away in the Budget press releases is the first admission by the Government that our national tax system is heading for major conflict with the European Court. However, this Finance Bill seems to be taking an interesting route. Certain clauses seek to limit the application of European law. The Government's lack of clear direction in the application of European law and the protection of the UK tax system is becoming increasingly worrying. What is clear beyond doubt is that the apparent conflict between UK and European law is creating significant uncertainty for British business.
	The Bill includes 83 clauses and 17 schedules that attempt to modernise stamp duty, a modernisation that leaves us with the worst of all options. Stamp duty is retained to be applied to securities transactions and certain partnership transactions; stamp duty reserve tax is to be applied to securities transactions, and a new tax—stamp duty land tax—is to be applied to land transactions. We now have three taxes with different rules, all of which are complex and have to be mastered by taxpayers. The Government have also missed the opportunity to reform stamp duty for home owners and remove the iniquities of the market. Following the abandoned consultation exercise, the Government have included in a raft of legislation clauses that will dramatically change the stamp duty treatment of leases on the assumption that businesses ignore commercial factors and lease property instead of buying it to avoid tax. According to Inland Revenue figures, that would increase the stamp duty burden fourfold for leases over 10 years and eightfold for leases over 25 years. It is not just big businesses that will be adversely affected. A large number of small and medium-sized businesses will experience a significant impact, which was so ably highlighted and dissected by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) in an authoritative and compelling speech.
	The Government of course argue that they have introduced the threshold of £150,000, which will insulate small and medium-sized businesses from the increased tax burden. However, that threshold will not exempt a 25-year lease with an annual rent of £10,000, nor will it exempt a 10-year lease with an annual rent of £20,000. Such leases are certainly not uncommon for smaller businesses—pubs, for instance—that have made the commercial decision to seek longer-term leases to allow greater security and longer-term business planning. That trend will be eroded by the tax increase, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who spoke for his constituents and, as a Member representing a neighbouring constituency, mine as well.

Michael Jack: Did my hon. Friend note that when this matter was first floated in the 2002 Red Book the figure for 2004–05 for the full-year effect of the changes in stamp duty was an increase of £450 million?

Stephen O'Brien: That was noted. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's powerful point is another reason why, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, that part of it will receive intense scrutiny. As is clear both from remarks made during our debate and what I have just been saying, stamp duty proposals are an additional friction for businesses, affecting their competitiveness.
	The proposed changes to stamp duty will also dramatically affect sale and leaseback transactions. Such transactions provide a significant source of financing for business where an uncertain trading environment and depressed share prices, as we have seen recently, severely constrain companies' ability to fund growth. The proposed changes will reduce the attractiveness of sale and leaseback financing transactions and will be a further constraint on business. The Chief Secretary forlornly prayed in aid the fact that the British Retail Consortium, often representing the larger retail chains, said that stamp duty land tax was good for business. However, representing the smaller businesses in the sector, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers states that the tax
	"would result in major market distortions, drastically increasing the entry hurdles for small businesses."
	It continues:
	"Measures . . . designed to help support business start ups . . . will be undermined by the imposition of a tax on business start ups in the form of stamp duty on leases. There is a clear lack of joined up thinking in the tax regime for small businesses."
	One of the striking and depressing features of the Chief Secretary's opening speech was his claim that there was no room for complacency on regulation. He was of course right to say so, but his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde that he was not complacent and that the Government were doing everything right for small businesses was the ultimate oxymoronic phrase, even for this Government. Stamp duty land tax is the wrong way to tackle tax avoidance. What is needed is genuine reform and a collaborative approach with business.
	The Bill includes several anti-avoidance measures, the motivation for which is understood and justified. However, in many cases the legislation is overbearing and overreaching. That will be particularly onerous for businesses that are not avoiding tax but on whom the legislation will none the less impact, either through additional taxation or through an increased reporting and regulatory burden.
	Not only business is affected. Individuals not seeking to avoid tax are also caught up in the burden of the anti-avoidance legislation, particularly through increasingly complex self-assessment calculations. For example, on employee securities and options, there are 73 pages of detailed anti-avoidance clauses. In the world of self-assessment, that places a significant burden on individuals. First, they have to understand the legislation and its impact, then they have properly to self-assess their tax position in their tax return. In many cases, detailed advice will be required.
	The legislation is academically driven, and it contains a number of subjective elements. The cost of getting the judgment wrong is stark. If the share option is taxed as income rather than capital, the effective rate of tax can rise from 10 per cent. to 53 per cent. The business granting the option will be liable if it gets the judgment wrong. That means that a well-meaning company and an employee will both need extensive advice to ensure that they do not fall foul of the legislation. In some cases, the cost of getting it wrong could be so penal that the company will not be able to take the risk of running certain share option schemes.
	The Bill increases the burden of excise duties. Hard-pressed farmers in my constituency and throughout the country will see the duty on red diesel increase by some 35 per cent. We will want detailed explanations from the Government as to why this year's tobacco duty increases will not simply compound the problems of smuggling and the legitimate cross-border market, thereby not tackling the key issue of reducing consumption—a point raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We are glad to have his and, I hope, the rest of his party's support, and we look forward to their promised amendment to introduce a local income tax via the Bill, on which, in the run up to the local government elections, they said that they did not wish to be drawn—no wonder, as it would hit worst and nastily on those who can least afford such a misguided tax.
	The bingo industry has been moved to the gross profit tax system, but unlike the rest of the gaming industry it will still suffer VAT. The Chancellor has failed to meet the promises that he made for a level playing field and has introduced discrimination within the gaming industry, disadvantaging bingo despite the Chancellor's attempt at his only and extraordinarily weak joke in his Budget speech.
	The Government will be taking £405 billion in tax this year. That is a 50 per cent. leap up on 1997 and the equivalent of £44 a week more in tax for every man, woman and child in the country. The Red Book shows taxes rising as a share of national income until almost the end of the decade. No longer is there any pretence of jam tomorrow. We are now on the road to higher taxes for the duration of this Government, however long or short a period that may be. By 2007–08, the Chancellor intends that 38.2 per cent. of national income will be taken in tax, compared with 34.9 per cent. in 1996–97. He plans to raise an extra £251 billion in taxes in 2007–08 compared with 1996–97. That is an extra £4,272 a year for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.
	The Government claim to have placed reform of the welfare state at the heart of their strategy for promoting social inclusion. It is claimed that the new tax and benefit system will provide help for those who need it most, when they need it most. Why then has the Paymaster General, within weeks of the Budget, been forced to stand before the House apologising for the Chancellor's tax credit confusion and chaos, which has meant that some 300,000 applicants have not received the payments to which they are entitled? The Government's tax credit system is a shambles, resulting in distress and dismay.
	The Government claim to be committed to strengthening the savings habit of future generations. However, the Red Book reveals that the savings ratio has fallen by more than half since 1997. After two years, three separate consultations and numerous re-announcements, the Red Book provides some details about the proposed introduction of the child trust fund. But despite the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) hoping to explore that in detail, the Finance Bill makes no mention of it. The Red Book states that ISAs are the Government's primary vehicle for tax advantaged saving outside pensions, but the Finance Bill contains no provisions to prevent the removal of the 10 per cent. tax credit for ISA and PEP dividends from April 2004. As we well know, the removal of the dividend tax credit for pensions, a £5 billion a year tax, has resulted in a typical personal pension saver now retiring on half of what he or she would have received just five years ago.
	This Government have brought us more spending, borrowing, promises, failure and excuses, and through this Bill, they have brought us more taxes, but still no results. How does this discredited Chancellor expect people ever to trust him on tax again? He decided to call his Red Book "Building a Britain of economic strength and social justice". Has a Red Book title ever been so inappropriate? Independent commentators have been queueing up to say that he has got his economic figures wrong yet again. So much for economic strength. Will not the families caught up in the tax credit shambles view his promises on social justice as another sick joke?
	I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment, reject the Bill and register their disgust about the fact that the Chancellor and his colleagues wish to impose a programme with a 12 June end date, allow only seven sitting days to scrutinise a Bill that adversely affects the lives of people and businesses throughout the country and stifle debate on a mean-spirited and unfair Finance Bill.

Dawn Primarolo: I welcome the opportunity to bring to a close this Second Reading of the Finance Bill in the sure knowledge that, along with all hon. Members of the House, I look forward to debates about the detail of the Bill both in Committee of the whole House and in the Standing Committee. Many hon. Members have contributed to this debate and I should like now to deal with the points that they made.
	This year's Budget and this Finance Bill will help to position the UK economy and UK businesses to take advantage of emerging prospects for renewed growth in the global economy. We are committed to a macro-economic framework that has successfully delivered stability and growth and proved flexible and responsive in the face of global weakness and uncertainty, which is more than the Conservatives ever managed to do when they were in power. We are committed to maintaining an environment that is positive for business and for entrepreneurs, and we are succeeding. The CBI recently recognised that
	"we are the most successful economy in Europe"
	and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rates the UK as having the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy.
	However, we recognise that more can always be done. In previous Finance Bills, we have shown in the measures that we have introduced the importance that we attach to dealing with market failures that prevent small and medium-sized businesses from achieving their full potential or hold back their growth. In order to maximise the benefit that those measures provide, we have announced that we will introduce new definitions of small and medium-sized enterprises that will raise the size limits to the maximum allowed under European legislation. That will enable many more businesses to benefit from the measures introduced by this Government and in this Bill, such as the 40 per cent. plant and machinery allowances, the 100 per cent. allowance for information and communications technology and less onerous reporting and accounting regulations. From this April, 650,000 small businesses will be able to opt for the VAT flat-rate scheme, cutting out the paperwork associated with accounting for VAT on every transaction.
	We have long recognised the cost to our economy of the productivity gap between the performance of the UK and that of our major competitors—especially the United States of America. We have already introduced key reforms to improve our productivity, including full independence for competition authorities and more capacity to tackle anti-competitive practices. We have reduced the corporation tax starting rate from 10 per cent to zero so that 150,000 small businesses pay no corporation tax on their profits. That is more than the previous Government ever did, but Opposition Members now have the cheek to complain about small businesses, despite all the opportunities that the Government have provided.
	Although we have begun to make progress towards closing the gap, we still need to do more. The Bill is another important step in the productivity agenda for the private and public sectors. Clause 164 extends to March 2004 the 100 per cent. first-year allowance available to small businesses for spending on information and communications technology. Following feedback from business, the changes introduced in the Bill will improve the working of the research and development tax credit, allowing more businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and more types of expenditure, to qualify. This Government, not the previous Government, introduced research and development tax credits. This Government provided the means for companies to tackle the improvement of their productivity. These measures will help the UK to close the gap between American spending on research and development to around 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product. We will continue to consult business on improving the definition of research and development to ensure that it keeps up with technological changes and continues to contribute effectively to our productivity objectives. As hon. Friends have said, we must ensure that the definition stays effective and at the very forefront of developments.
	To ensure that growing businesses get the access to finance that they need, we are consulting on enhancing the enterprise incentive scheme, venture capital trusts and the small firms loans scheme. We have published a consultation document examining whether the adoption of a model similar to the United States small business investment companies could boost the supply of early-stage growth capital to enterprises in the UK. It is this Government who have taken that enterprise agenda forward, not the previous Government when they had the opportunity to do so.
	We have set out our commitment to supporting business and to introducing more effective measures to deal with market failure, but we must also maintain a fair tax system. Taxpayers who contribute their fair share have a right to expect that others will do so, and the Government will take action against those who abuse the system, ensuring that we provide for a level playing field. Loopholes giving scope for unfairness and economic distortion will be closed. Clauses 17 and 18 provide for a package of measures to tackle VAT fraud, especially missing trader fraud, which has become a serious problem across Europe.
	The Bill also includes specific measures to close down several avoidance schemes that certain businesses or individuals were using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) touched on that. With regard to clause 18, the anti-fraud measure is targeted at serial abusers of the tax system, imposing a joint and several liability for payment of unpaid VAT on specific commodities on anyone in the same supply chain. The in-built safeguards will ensure that innocent businesses are not unwittingly caught in the measure, which will be applied only to those businesses that Customs and Excise can demonstrate knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the VAT in their supply chain was at risk of not being paid. The right hon. Member for Fylde asked how that will be decided. I can tell him that businesses that exercise care in their business activities and make reasonable checks on those with whom they deal will not be caught; and that we will consult people on what those reasonable checks should be to ensure that they reflect normal commercial practice.
	The Bill introduces measures to counter the avoidance of corporation tax, national insurance contributions and tax on employment income.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde also asked about tax planning. He made it sound as if once we had closed a tax planning opportunity, it would never reopen. He knows that the worlds of tax and commerce are far more complex than that and that it is a constant game of chess to maintain the balance between fairness and pressure on individuals and the Government's right, on taxpayers' behalf, to ensure that the correct amount of tax is raised.
	In the Budget, the Chancellor allocated £66 million to the Inland Revenue to support the implementation of the new compliance and enforcement package for direct tax and national insurance. It is expected to produce at least £1.6 billion over the next three years. The National Audit Office audited those assumptions.
	In the Bill, the Chancellor confirms his commitment to a comprehensive modernisation of stamp duty. The Bill introduces a modernised tax on the modern business environment, with enforcement and compliance powers commensurate with other Inland Revenue taxes. It is a robust response to widespread tax planning and avoidance, which has distorted business decision making and given rise to complex and artificial vehicles to transfer property tax.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), like several other contributors, referred specifically to the stamp duty changes. The measures are designed to be as simple as possible while protecting revenue. Introducing blocks of new legislation rather than a host of detailed amendments is a much preferred approach. In the stamp duty reforms and the share scheme measures that other hon. Members mentioned, the approach adopted is the tax law rewrite and the Government need to move forward on that basis.
	Matters that affect stamp duty are twofold. The first set covers avoidance on commercial property transactions. Half all large commercial transactions are worth more than £10 million and pay 4 per cent. on property purchases, whereas the other half pay nothing by using a variety of complex avoidance techniques. That is clearly unfair and I cannot understand why hon. Members believe that the position should be allowed to persist. We are modernising the tax, making it e-compatible and introducing modern enforcement mechanisms to close the loopholes.
	The second set of issues involves stamp duty on new leasehold transactions. The current tax is based on upfront payments for a lease, paid at 4 per cent. and a payment based on an average annual rent. It is highly distorting and there are large cliff edges. It does not work properly and there is no level playing field. The proposals in the measure tackle all those matters and provide for further consultation about dealing with the avoidance mechanism.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) asked several questions about stamp duty. If he reads the Red Book, he will realise that it acknowledges that future Governments will consider the rates of stamp duty on residential and commercial property in relation to the conditions in each market. We make no apology for tackling the use of corporate wrappers to avoid the charge. Almost £500 million of tax a year is avoided. That cannot be fair to taxpayers who pay their taxes.
	The lease duty reform tackles the differential in tax charge between freehold and leasehold, which has an unsustainable driver of tax-distorting business. The proposals in the Bill make it clear that, on consultation, if a better way of dealing with the distortions is produced, the Government will consider it. We will not leave the distortions in place. The Finance Bill implements that intention.
	While raising a fairer share of tax from large commercial deals, the Government have sought to protect small businesses in a variety of ways through thresholds, which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness will have ample time to discuss. I should be happy to give him the detail.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked specific questions about tackling regional, economic and social inequality. Stamp duty on non-residential property transactions will be removed altogether in 2,000 enterprise areas to reduce the cost to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas and to support the regeneration of brownfield sites. That measure, in clause 57, is part of a wider package of measures to encourage business investment in our most deprived and disadvantaged communities. Without fail, Members speaking today have welcomed those measures and the way in which they can take forward the important steps of generating economic development in our disadvantaged areas. The Bill introduces changes that represent a major reform of a badly outdated component of the tax system. There has been consultation with business on the main provisions, and consultation will continue in other areas, particularly in regard to the lease duty, giving business further chances to feed back on our proposals.
	We have shown that we are determined to build a tax system that supports families, particularly those on medium and low incomes, through the working tax credit and the child tax credit, making work pay and giving those seeking work the support that they need. Hon. Members' assertion that that is not an efficient system is simply not true. That money is being paid to millions of families in this country. There are 3.35 million in payment or ready to be paid, and 1.3 million who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance are receiving that money now. The Opposition parties would deny that money to families in the first place.
	Alongside those reforms, clause 136 provides support for those who regularly work at home and have flexible working arrangements. Employers will be able to meet some or all of the incidental costs incurred by employees who work at home, without giving rise to a tax charge. The right hon. Member for Fylde—if I dare compliment him, he seems to be the only Opposition Member actually to have read the Bill, and therefore made his comments with regard to its content—made the point that £2 was not enough. I have to tell him that £2 a week is not the upper limit; employers can meet the full amount of additional household expenses incurred by their employees. We settled on the amount of £104 a year—£2 a week—because employers who are already supporting their employees recommended to us that that should be the starting rate. We consulted, we listened, and we acted on it. Those are precisely the mechanisms that the Conservative Government never applied. This Government consult on more of their tax legislation more frequently and more openly—and listen to what has been said—than the Conservatives ever did when they were in government.
	Many Members raised the issue of consultation on corporation tax reform, and the prospect of replacing capital allowances with depreciation. It was suggested that that would harm investment. The objective of the corporation tax reform is to remove tax distortions to business decisions, simplifying and modernising the tax system precisely to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to do business and maintains the competitive advantage that has been so well established by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor through his cuts in corporation tax and his introduction of many reliefs that ensure that companies large and small can benefit.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised many of those points. He also raised the issue of the tax treatment of depreciation of stocks, and of how that might harm the whisky industry—the Scottish whisky industry in particular. I would say to him, and to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who also raised this issue, that I am aware of the concerns of the Scotch Whisky Association about the changes in corporation tax treatment of depreciation of stocks following recent tax cases, and we are discussing the issues with its representatives. The measure was not designed to achieve such outcomes, and we recognise that the spirits industry makes an important contribution to the UK economy.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the deduction for pensioners in hospital. Pensioners currently enjoy full benefits for their first 13 weeks in hospital. Changes to be introduced during May will mean that all pensioners who entered hospital from Budget day onwards will receive the full pension, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said.
	The hon. Member for Angus said that there was never anything for Scotland. I cannot believe he has not noticed the low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment in Scotland. I cannot believe he has not noticed that employment in Scotland has risen by 146,000 since 1997. I cannot believe he has not noticed that by 2005–06 spending in Scotland will be £4.1 billion higher than in 2002–03, enabling the Scottish Executive to deliver their priorities. I cannot believe he has not noticed that Scotland will benefit from 135 enterprise areas, which will help the most deprived parts of the country.
	The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to suggest that economic stability and the Government's priorities in terms of tax reform, growth, interest rates and inflation—creating an environment that is good for the economies of all the British communities—are somehow passing Scotland by. He is wrong, he is wrong, and he is wrong.
	Our policy objectives, reflected in this Finance Bill, will help to build a more flexible and dynamic economy. They will provide greater fairness through job creation, more investment in skills and greater regional flexibility, and will distribute growth more evenly throughout the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. This Finance Bill underscores our commitment to investment in public services, to maintaining our hard-won economic stability, to encouraging enterprise, to achieving full employment and to tackling child and pensioner poverty, to build a Britain with economic strength and social justice—something that the Conservative party never did when it was in power. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 379.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill:
	Committal 
	1.—(1) Clauses 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 22, 42, 56, 57, 124, 130 to 135, 138, 139, 148 and 184 and Schedules 5, 6, 19, 21, 22 and 25, and any new Clauses and Schedules tabled by Friday 9th May 2003 relating to excise duty on spirits or R&D tax credits for oil exploration, shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
	3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 12th June 2003.
	(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	4. When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
	Other proceedings 
	5. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed—[Mr. Hepple.]
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Ordered,
	That Mr. Andrew Mitchell be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Mr. Nigel Waterson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Northern Ireland

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker—

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Secretary of State; I promised the Rev. Ian Paisley that he could raise a point of order.

Ian Paisley: You will remember, Sir, that at business questions last week the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised the matter of how the official in government in Dublin told about the elections being off and other matters. At the end of those business questions, there was an exchange between the hon. Gentleman, me and those on the Front Bench. The Leader of the House made it clear that he knew nothing about any statement being made, which we accept, but during those discussions there was quite a gathering around your Chair, Sir, and suddenly you stood up and said that we would have a statement. However, when we were told that we would have a statement, we were told that we would have more time to discuss it. I wonder how, at this late hour, Members from Northern Ireland will have that time, and can you tell us how much time we will have?

Mr. Speaker: I clearly recall that I said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would come back today and make a fuller statement. The right hon. Gentleman is a man of his word. He promised me that he would come back, and he is here this evening. I am here and the hon. Gentleman is here, so what more do we want?

Paul Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about political developments in Northern Ireland.
	I reported to the House last Thursday on our assessment of the state of political dialogue in Northern Ireland, and our regretful conclusion that the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, due on 29 May, must once again be postponed. We thought it right to announce that decision to the House as soon as possible, given that the election campaign was beginning, but the result was that many right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland and, indeed, those interested in its affairs were unable to be present.
	I said that I would therefore return this week to say something more, giving those Members who wished to participate in discussion a chance to come here and do so. I am now also able to report on the discussions in Dublin today between the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and colleagues, including me.
	In my earlier statement, I recalled that, since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland on 15 October last year, we had made a great deal of headway in discussions between the two Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland, aimed at completing the implementation of the Belfast agreement, including the full restoration of the institutions. The Governments had drawn up a comprehensive and detailed set of proposals, capable, we believe, of achieving broad support among the parties.
	We published those proposals last Thursday. They consisted of a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments, setting out a vision of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, the devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity. There was also an agreement between the two Governments on how to monitor the parties' and the Governments' honouring of commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration, along with arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments. Finally, we set out a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
	From the start, however, both Governments made it clear that, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach put it on 14 October,
	"it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion".
	Unfortunately, a draft statement by the IRA and subsequent comments by Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fein, were neither clear nor unambiguous. Without clarity, there could be no trust between parties and therefore no early return for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	The question that the Prime Minister and the people of Northern Ireland wanted the IRA to answer was a simple one: will the IRA call a halt to all of the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Will it stop the so-called punishment beatings? Will it stop the targeting and the procurement of weapons? Will it stop inciting people to riot on the streets of Northern Ireland? Those are simple questions, to which there should be a simple answer—yes or no.
	The IRA has tonight published its statement. As the two Governments acknowledged at the time, it represented some progress. Members of the House and the people of Northern Ireland can now read it and judge for themselves whether it answers the fundamental questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Does it mean the definitive end to all the paramilitary activity to which the joint declaration refers? The view of both Governments is that it does not. It is not a clear and unambiguous statement. Without that clarity, there can be no trust, and therefore with great regret we concluded that elections should be further postponed. We shall introduce later this week, and propose to debate next week, a Bill to authorise this postponement. We hope that the election will be held in the autumn.
	I know the concern felt by many at this further delay, and at the late stage at which it was announced. There is also frustration among many members of the political parties who had geared themselves up for a mighty effort, which is now abruptly halted. I well understand those feelings. This was, for the Government, a very difficult decision. In the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and the unique form of government established by the agreement, we believed that it was the only course to take. It is clear that, as the political dialogue stands at present, there would not have been the willingness to participate that is necessary to partnership government under the agreement. We therefore plan to introduce a Bill that will allow us to hold an election as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been re-established. We hope that that can be done in the autumn.
	The Government's course for the future is clear. We will go on seeking to build trust between the communities and hence the foundations for political advance. We have had a great deal of success so far: what we are now experiencing, I believe, need be no more than a temporary setback. We are indeed in a position of great strength. Most of those foundations are already there: we have the agreement, and that must be the bedrock of any future progress. It is not something that is open to renegotiation. Indeed, a vast amount of progress has already been made in implementing that agreement, especially in the vital areas of policing and criminal justice.
	It is a further strength, however, that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the two Governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Belfast agreement. That, too, has been the subject of discussion with all the pro-agreement parties and agreed by the Governments, and that, also, is not open for renegotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated this evening in Dublin, we shall proceed to implement many elements of the joint declaration that are not conditional on action by others: for example, in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights and some aspects of normalisation. We will also introduce the legislation necessary to set up the independent monitoring body, which will, among other things, report on paramilitary activity. The joint declaration package also contains a number of measures that can be implemented only if there are acts of completion by the IRA.
	I believe that it is a strength of the present position that there is such a widespread recognition of the benefits that devolution brought to Northern Ireland and a wish on all sides to return to a local Administration. In the coming weeks, the Government will consult all parties, whatever their position on the agreement, about the best way of bringing devolution back to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
	Finally, I should remind the House that a key element in the progress that has been made is the close partnership between the Irish Government and ourselves. Without that relationship and the unstinting support of successive American Administrations, the transformation that has already occurred in Northern Ireland would not have been possible.
	In fact, the reason for the late hour of this statement is that I wanted to report to the House the results of this afternoon's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Dublin. That was an important opportunity for the Governments to reaffirm the centrality of their partnership to continuing political progress in Northern Ireland. There was agreement about the implementation of aspects of the joint declaration to which I have already referred, and I shall continue to work closely with the Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, to ensure that the political parties in Northern Ireland are encouraged to engage with each other to resolve current difficulties and to re-establish trust.
	We have faced many challenges and setbacks in the five years since the agreement was reached and I will not pretend to the House that the current impasse is not serious. However, we are determined that that obstacle will be overcome, as others have been in the past. The critical issues of trust—over commitment to exclusively peaceful means and about the stability of the institutions—can be addressed with clear statements of intent from all parties.
	Events in the past few weeks have been deeply disappointing for everyone concerned, but they should not obscure the great progress that has been made. The publication of the joint declaration represents a major step towards the complete implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We believe that that agreement remains the only sustainable basis for a fair and honourable accommodation between nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland. It remains the only possible basis for peace. In the coming weeks and months we will work openly and transparently to fulfil further our side of the bargain struck on Good Friday in 1998 and we call on the IRA to find the clarity, in both words and deeds, to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs.

Quentin Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement.
	I must begin by taking up with the Secretary of State a grave matter, on which I hope he can immediately set our anxieties to rest. A report is circulating this evening that the Government propose, irrespective of progress in the peace process, decommissioning or cessation of paramilitary activities by the IRA, to dismantle two observation towers in south Armagh. If that report is correct, the Government have retreated from their new-found robustness and the comprehensive approach of the peace process that we have urged on them for some time, and have reverted to their previous pattern of making unilateral concessions. That is disastrous, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
	That pattern started when the Government released all prisoners without obtaining any decommissioning in return. I really thought that, after all this time, even they would have learned some essential lessons from that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a definitive and clear reassurance on that report. If the concession was made today merely to appease the Irish Government after this Government's decision to postpone the elections in Northern Ireland, a double error has been perpetrated.
	What other aspects of normalisation do the Government intend to proceed with unconditionally and regardless—that is to say, unlinked with progress by paramilitaries or former paramilitaries to observe their obligations under the Belfast agreement? Why do the provisions in the joint declaration on on-the-run terrorists not provide for a court appearance by the ex-terrorist? Surely a court procedure with no power to imprison and no power even to compel attendance is a mockery.
	On the postponement of the elections, is it not the case that a considerable shambles has now been created? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that over the past few weeks thousands of people in Northern Ireland have been spending their time and money in good faith preparing for these elections, selecting candidates, issuing manifestos and launching campaigns? Some candidates will have given up jobs or forgone other job opportunities, but now, after nominations are in and canvassing is in full swing, the Government want retrospectively to call the whole thing off.
	As we are on the subject of candidates, what is the position of Members of the last Assembly, dissolved last week, who have been paid at a reduced rate since the suspension last October? Do the Government propose that they should be paid anything now? What about officials and staff at Stormont? Those practical matters are important for a lot of people, and the Government owe the House an explanation.
	More important still, what kind of democratic enthusiasm will people in Northern Ireland display next time if they have been made such a fool of on this occasion, when in good faith they began to prepare for elections? Do the Government accept that if they succeed in their aim of cancelling or postponing the elections they will owe full financial compensation, although I wince to think that the poor taxpayer will have to pay for the Government's mess? On Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the matter of compensation, but he did not mention it in his statement, so will he tell us what he has now decided? In any event, does he not think that a fulsome apology is owed to all concerned?
	If, as has been widely suggested in Northern Ireland, I am afraid, the reason for seeking to postpone the elections was that the Government did not like what they thought would be the result, irrespective of the political morality of that decision, what makes the Government think that the result will be any different in a few months' time? The decision makes no more practical sense that it has moral justification unless they can answer that question. If, on the other hand, the real reason, not the excuse, was to punish Sinn Fein for not completing the clarification of the three points—we also condemn it for that—was that not a perverse response? Why punish everyone because of the failings of one party? Is not the right way to punish Sinn Fein for non-compliance, as I have said over and over again—for example, at the time of Stormontgate—and to exclude it from the Executive and from taking part in any future Executive if it does not comply?
	Why, if the real reason for the cancellation is Sinn Fein's non-compliance, were the Government apparently happy in February, up until Hillsborough, to hold elections on 1 May, at a time when Gerry Adams had not made any of the clarifications that he has now made, including the two that the Government have accepted? Is it not bizarre to say that elections can go ahead if Sinn Fein-IRA make no clarification at all, but that they have to be cancelled if they make two clarifications out of three? Do the Government expect to be taken seriously when they give that as an explanation for their decision?
	Let me now turn to the consequences of the decision for the peace process. Do the Government not appreciate that an impending election can itself be a major inhibiting factor, deterring the parties in a process of this kind from reaching closure? It is difficult for anyone to make final concessions or, indeed, accept publicly and formally that the other side has made adequate concessions, even if it has done so, if one is battling with internal opponents or rivals who may accuse one of going soft. That inhibition would, of course, be removed once an election was over, but if the Government get their way those electoral pressures and the attendant difficulties and the uncertainty that follow will simply be pushed forward for as long as elections are postponed. Was there not a combination of circumstances that might have induced a settlement next month, in June? Elections and the associated electoral inhibitions would have been over, but nevertheless there would be a deadline ahead to concentrate minds in the form of a six-week deadline for agreeing an Executive once an Assembly was summoned. Has that opportunity not been thrown away rather carelessly in a decision clearly made in panic with little forethought and less consultation in the course of Thursday morning? Does that not all amount to a rather bad day's work indeed, both for the peace process and for democracy in Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy: With regard to the towers—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is right that there are two in south Armagh—the current assessment of the security services in Northern Ireland is that we can dismantle them in any event.
	I mentioned in the statement that it is one thing to deal with what normal normalisation, as it were, is all about, which was agreed in the Belfast agreement, and which is subject to the level of threat—because it is subject to the level of threat—and another to deal with the normalisation details in the joint declaration, which were linked to an act of completion on the part of the IRA. For example, there was a time scale in the joint declaration of some two years, and there were other details there too. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that normalisation was coming to a halt, and that these things would not happen. He should realise that the normalisation, as it is outlined in the joint declaration, is precisely that which, as I say, is linked to the question of the acts of completion by the IRA.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, too, that of course prisoners were released as part of the Good Friday agreement, but that was as a direct result of the people of Northern Ireland agreeing, and the people of the island of Ireland agreeing, by way of a referendum—

Quentin Davies: Not the OTRs.

Paul Murphy: I am referring at the moment to the release of prisoners. The Government did not suddenly decide one Wednesday morning to release all the prisoners in Northern Ireland. Those prisoners were released directly as a result of the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members will understand that there were months and months of negotiations at Castle Buildings in Belfast, which eventually led to the decision that that is what would happen in the agreement.
	With regard to appeasing the Irish Government, those, if I may say so, are entirely the wrong words to use about a Government who are in partnership with this Government to try to bring about peace and political stability in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, as indeed will the House, to discuss OTRs, particularly with regard to any judicial process that is referred to in the joint declaration.
	The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments came about the postponement—not the cancellation, but the postponement—of the elections. It is not true to say that the decision to postpone the elections was taken in panic. Obviously, it was a difficult decision to take. It was not easy; of course it was not.
	As I said to the hon. Gentleman last week, I believe that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the settlement in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement did not set up an Assembly such as the one that I have in my own country of Wales. It is not the same as the Parliament in Scotland. The Assembly in Northern Ireland is a body specifically designed to bring about political stability and peace in a country that was divided for 30 or 40 years. The only way in which that can happen is if there is trust and confidence between the Unionist and the nationalist communities in Northern Ireland as expressed through their political parties.
	What sense would it have made to proceed if, at the beginning of the election campaign, as it was, we knew precisely that it would have been impossible to have set up an Assembly that could have produced an Executive? What would have been the point of that? In exactly the same way, what would be the point of returning Members to this House of Commons when we knew that could never produce a Government? That is the issue. But a Government—[Interruption.] Let me qualify what I have said to Opposition Members. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Assembly in Northern Ireland is the same as an Assembly in any other part of Europe? Of course it is not. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman put questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Opposition must have the courtesy to allow the Secretary of State to reply in his own way.

Paul Murphy: I labour under the misapprehension that members of the Conservative party agree with the Good Friday agreement. If they did so, they would understand it, but clearly they do not. The agreement sets up an Assembly that is specially designed in order to accommodate trust and confidence among the communities. That is impossible in the present circumstances. Why is it impossible? We could not get the agreement that was required to restore the institutions. We could not get an answer from the IRA that was clear or unambiguous enough to establish trust and confidence between the parties, so it is a pointless exercise to try to establish that institution until we have tried again. We are saying not that we are cancelling those elections, but that we are deferring them until the autumn so that we can get trust and confidence among the parties in order to ensure that we can restore the institutions of the Executive so that they can have local Ministers and so that Northern Ireland will no longer have direct rule. At the end of the day, this is about the trust and confidence that are necessary, and we have to build them.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for allowing me advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats share his disappointment that the IRA, when called upon to make a clear and unambiguous statement renouncing violence, does not seem to have been able to do so.
	Since the Good Friday agreement, we have sought to approach Northern Ireland matters on a non-partisan basis and to support the Government where possible. It is therefore with particular regret that we are unable to support this further postponement of the elections. We cannot preach democracy to the paramilitaries while in practice we deny it to the people.
	Will the Secretary of State please clarify whether the open and transparent process about which he spoke means that there will be a departure from his practice of conducting talks as a series of bilaterals instead of having round-table talks involving all parties? Might that be done as part of the paragraph 8 review of the agreement? Will the postponement last until a fixed date and not for an indefinite period? We shall judge the Government's Bill when we see it, but I give notice to him that, if it does not include such a date, we will take steps either here or in the other place to ensure that it does so.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the political parties that have been left out of pocket as a result of his decision will be compensated? He must be aware that the most effective way of squeezing smaller and more moderate parties out of the political process in Northern Ireland is to allow them to stand the losses resulting from the Government's stop-go approach to the elections.

Paul Murphy: It is not a question of the Government stopping and going, but of the process stopping and going. That above all else is what matters. [Interruption.] I do not know why Opposition Members scoff at the idea of the process, because it is the process that is most important; it is not the fact that elections are deferred by a few months that is important, but getting lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Do they think for one second that we would have got the peace that we have had? We have had peace since the Good Friday agreement was reached. Of course we have had peace. Fewer people died as a result of terrorist activities this year than in any other year. At the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland, more than 400 people perished in one year. Of course progress has been made in Northern Ireland in five years and it is entirely wrong to suggest otherwise.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the denial of democracy. What is happening is not a denial of democracy, because it is the postponement of elections until the autumn. That must be taken into account with regard to the fundamental nature of the agreement that set up this particular type of Assembly. I repeat that it is not like assemblies elsewhere. The rules and regulations of the Northern Ireland Assembly are based on ensuring that both communities can live in this particular context.
	On the talks themselves, we will have to see in the next few weeks what the parties want. Clearly, that has always been a combination of bilaterals and round-table talks. Frankly, the most successful approach is to ensure that we get the trust and confidence and re-establish agreement on moving into the restored institutions.
	On compensation, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have today written to all parties in Northern Ireland indicating that the Government will compensate parties for any losses made within the terms of the Representation of the People Acts. That is important.

Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is some concern and doubt about the reasons for the postponement of the election, centring on the notion that there is, or was, a semantic debate over "will" or "should". I happen to believe that there was not such a debate, but the Secretary of State can clarify the matter by stating explicitly that the two Governments made it clear to Sinn Fein from the very beginning of the negotiations, and at every stage throughout them, that the issues dealt with in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration would have to be delivered as an act of completion. If the Secretary of State makes that unequivocal statement on behalf of the two Governments, it can dispel the fear, concern and apprehension that this was a matter of semantics.
	I should like the Secretary of State to give an opinion on a hypothetical situation. Had the IRA given a commitment to end the activities specified in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, does he believe that an election would have been able to proceed as of now?
	My third question is this: after at least two suspensions and two postponements of legally called elections, is the Secretary of State convinced that all the blame lies on one side?

Paul Murphy: I suppose that the blame lies on us all for not producing what should have occurred in the past few months. Having spent seven months trying to establish an agreement to move to a restored institution in Northern Ireland, I am the first to regret, and, indeed, to apologise to the parties in Northern Ireland for the fact that we did not achieve what we wanted to achieve.
	My hon. Friend rightly mentions paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, which refers to
	"an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity".
	It identifies those and spells them out, referring to targeting, surveillance, procurement of weapons, rioting and so-called punishment beatings. All those issues are important to anyone who lives in Northern Ireland because they represent continued activity on the part of paramilitary organisations. My hon. Friend is also right that if the IRA had said, "Yes, we will put an end to all those particular activities", I am sure that that would have produced sufficient trust among parties in Northern Ireland to go into an election campaign and enable them to say, "Yes, we will restore the institutions when this election is held and move forward in the peace process."

David Trimble: The Government have clearly brought themselves into a situation in which they are open to criticism for their decision, which was made at the last minute and in a rather incoherent way. If they had been thinking more carefully and more clearly about the situation, things would have been better. I have to say also that the Secretary of State has added somewhat to the confusion with some of his comments this evening. Is it not the case that the key issue revolves around suspension; that without genuine acts of completion from the republican movement suspension could not be lifted and the institutions could not resume; and that consequently, without those genuine acts of completion, there was in reality no Assembly and no body that could even meet? It is not a question of whether an Executive could form. As things stood, and as they stand today, is it not the case that the Assembly cannot meet, cannot function and, to all intents and purposes, legally is not there?
	The key question is whether there are genuine acts of completion, as defined. Is not it therefore paradoxically good that we can all read the IRA statement and see that it contains no suggestion of an end of paramilitary activity? It does not contain any clear indication of when we will get an equivalent statement to the war being over so that people know that there is a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The IRA has clearly failed to respond in the way in which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that it was told time and again in recent months that it would have to respond.
	The Secretary of State reminded us that the key elements of the joint declaration were conditional on acts of completion. However, he introduced a distinction between matters that were to be conditional, such as further normalisation. I associate myself with the comments of the Opposition spokesman on any proposal to dismantle security installations before genuine acts of completion. That was never discussed or agreed by any party. The Secretary of State will confirm that he has introduced a new distinction between normal and abnormal acts of normalisation. We are left wondering into which category dismantling security installations falls.
	The joint declaration contains other matters that are not conditional. It would help the public if the Secretary of State clearly stated the precise matters with which the Government will proceed. The comments in the statement are general and will therefore spread some confusion and perhaps alarm. Precision is necessary.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to introducing legislation to establish the independent monitoring body. However, will he make it clear that it will contain the new power for Her Majesty's Government to exclude parties from the Northern Ireland Executive? Will the legislation be on the statute book before any resumption of the Assembly so that the means are available to deal with any continuing paramilitary activity or a party's failure to commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods?
	The Secretary of State claims that the declaration is no longer negotiable. Does that apply to all aspects and details? I am thinking of the considerable detail on Army deployment in the event of normality. The Secretary of State knows that there is anxiety about the locations of particular bases. There will be considerable disappointment if, even in the event of normality, full peace and a return to the pre-1969 position, there are no soldiers in County Armagh.

Paul Murphy: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman found some of my comments confusing. It may be due to the lateness of the hour.
	On suspension, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that one could not restore the Assembly without restoring the Executive. As soon as the Assembly is restored, the mechanisms that the agreement created mean that the Assembly would immediately have to select a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and other Ministers. Consequently, if the Assembly is unsuspended, forming a Government is automatic.
	I agree that the IRA's statement did not present a clear and unambiguous picture of the end of paramilitary activity. That is why we are in the current position. The IRA has not expressed with sufficient clarity its intentions on continued paramilitary activity.
	I shall discuss the continued implementation of the agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and other parties in the weeks ahead. However, the Government will appoint an independent oversight commissioner to provide independent scrutiny of the implementation of their decisions on the criminal justice review. By the end of 2003, we will publish statements of ethics for all criminal justice agencies that do not currently have them. We will look for further co-operation on criminal justice matters between the two jurisdictions when dealing with crime that is occurring right across the island. We will work with the parties' victims and survivors to seek to establish what further help we can give to them.
	We will also look at broadcasting to see whether we could have a fund to give financial support for the Irish language, and take steps to encourage support to be made available for an Ulster Scots academy. We will look at the human rights situation in Northern Ireland and at the work of the Human Rights Commission, and at other matters, too. I will not burden the House with further details, but we will be discussing all these matters with the parties in Northern Ireland in the weeks ahead. On future legislation, I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that he and I, and others, will have discussions about the nature of that legislation as we move forward.

Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I wrote to the Prime Minister before this announcement was made, expressing my concern that the elections might be postponed because I thought that that would undermine the democratic nature of the Good Friday agreement, and because I believe that it will leave a dangerous vacuum during the summer that people of ill will might seek to fill. Does my right hon. Friend not see that, while one accepts his argument that an Administration must follow from elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, he seems to be deciding what the results of the elections are going to be? That sets a very bad precedent. What will happen in the autumn if we are unable to get agreement between the parties? Will the elections again be postponed because we do not like the prospect of a particular result? My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have set themselves on a difficult, dangerous and embarrassing course.
	There were some crumbs of comfort in the Secretary of State's statement, however. It is good to know that the two Governments are continuing their close co-operation, and we would like to know what steps they are going to take to try to prevent that vacuum from occurring in the summer. Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what will happen to the review of reserved and excepted matters? Does he agree that one of the problems of the IRA's not giving the specific and direct reply that was properly asked of it is that it let some parties off the hook, as they have yet to say unreservedly and completely that they would accept service in a joint Administration?

Paul Murphy: I do not think that this is a question of the result of the elections. Whenever those elections are held, who knows what will happen? Obviously, people will vote in the way that they will vote in Northern Ireland, and that will be the democratic test. I have been trying to explain to the House for the last half hour or so, however, that this was not simply a test of the democratic process. It was also a test of the agreement itself. In my view, the agreement and the process would have been put in considerable jeopardy if the elections had gone ahead and we could not have seen the restoration of the institutions and had remained with a suspended Assembly. I saw no point in that.

Kevin McNamara: What happens in the autumn?

Paul Murphy: I sincerely hope that there will come a time in the autumn when we will be able to resolve the difficulties that we currently face. If we cannot, we will have to see what happens then, but we must try again to ensure that we can get agreement and clarity from the IRA. As the agreement now stands, Sinn Fein, with the number of Members that it possesses in the Assembly, is able to form part of the Government and the Administration. Clearly, if there is an unwillingness on the part of certain parties to share government with a party that has not made its position clear on paramilitary activity, we will get nowhere as a consequence. The first thing we must try to ensure is that we obtain clarity about these issues from the IRA.
	There are those who regard the agreement and the process as flawed. They are entitled to that view, but I do not share it. The Government do not believe that there is an alternative to the Good Friday agreement. We consequently believe that we should do our best to sustain it and protect it, and to protect the process. We think that this was the best way of doing that.

Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State will recall that on 27 November I asked the Prime Minister what completion meant. I asked whether it meant a statement. The Prime Minister replied
	"It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	It could not have been more crystal clear.
	Why have the Government changed? Why have they said in tonight's statement that the critical issues of trust, over commitment to exclusively peaceful means and the stability of the institutions, can be addressed with a clear statement of intent? It was not a clear statement of intent that the Prime Minister issued to me in November; he said that that commitment had to be seen, and that there must be action. It is action that the people of Northern Ireland want to see. Why the sudden change? I think that the Secretary of State has changed because of the pressures placed on him, and I think that he and the Prime Minister should stand up to these people and say "We want a change".
	I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and he does not often agree with me. He said tonight that the next election might not take place in the autumn. What will decide the date? Will it be arranged as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been re-established? I never had any trust in the IRA, so it cannot be re-established. The vast majority of Unionists have no trust in the IRA. For the Secretary of State to tell us that he will look for a day when the sun will shine and the IRA will come out and say something, and everyone will be satisfied, is a recipe for more disaster, not for bringing peace to a troubled country.
	The Secretary of State cannot get away with what he said about the towers. He cannot get away with dismantling the only security that hundreds of Protestants have in those peripheral areas. I have been there, as a public representative and as MEP for the area. I have been at the towers, and I have been with the police. The police inform me that if the military are pulled out, they will be sitting on a little island, and will not be able to move out of their police stations. They need the military to help them to police the area.
	A calendar has been set out. What is this calendar? It is a calendar that hangs, draws and quarters Northern Ireland. We need to recognise the seriousness of the situation. No one will be deceived in Northern Ireland. The Government and their spokesmen talk to people. We hear of Northern Ireland's bravery—of a parochial little place. I know what my next-door neighbour is thinking about me, and he knows what I am thinking about him. But why are the Government so keen on investigations, with bodies finding out how the people are likely to vote? According to the last report they received, there would be too many—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway. Perhaps the Secretary of State can reply.

Paul Murphy: As I said in my earlier answer, people will vote as they vote, and what will happen will happen, but let me deal with the first point that the hon. Gentleman made in referring to what the Prime Minister said in November. It is very rare that I quote myself in the House of Commons, and even rarer that I quote something that I said an hour ago or less; nevertheless, I will. I finished my statement by saying: "We call on the IRA to find the clarity, in both words and deeds, to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs." The reason we are debating this statement and these matters in the House this evening is precisely because we did not get sufficient clarity and unambiguity from the IRA about its intentions so far as continued paramilitary activity is concerned. That is central to re-establishing that trust and to ensuring that the process moves forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call any other hon. Members, I should say that I have called all Front-Bench spokesmen for every party represented here. I therefore expect only one question from each Back Bencher who is called. I call Eddie McGrady.

Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has laboured long and hard at this particular coalface, and we must put on the record the enormous transformation of Northern Ireland, in terms of political development and peace, that has taken place in the past five years. But I must part company with him on the Government's decision to postpone elections, because not a single party in Northern Ireland, of whatever perspective or tradition, said that it wanted postponement; all were prepared and geared to go. That is unless, of course, he can tell the House that private requests were made to the Government by certain parties that there be a postponement; but according to the public record, that has not happened. How does the Secretary of State envisage, therefore, in the current circumstance of a huge democratic and representative deficit, that it will be possible to pressurise the parties to any greater extent than in a post-election period? Given my concern about his statement and answers to subsequent questions, will he reaffirm that the Good Friday agreement and the joint declaration of the Governments are not negotiable, and will not be frustrated by IRA paramilitarism or Ulster Unionist party intransigence? It was nothing else but the withdrawal of the UUP from the Government that caused the suspension. [Interruption.]

Paul Murphy: It is back to the issue again: if we do not get sufficient trust within the Assembly, we will of course find that there is a collapse of the Executive. No one can force political parties or their leaders or elected representatives to go into government with anybody else; at the end of the day, that is the important issue. Ultimately, only if there is agreement about that can we move forward with the process. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of these issues, because he and I spent year in, year out before 1998 trying to establish the process that we are currently in. He also knows that the particular nature of the Assembly, the way it operates and the rules and regulations that govern it are based entirely upon the trust between parties that is, at the end of the day, voluntary. We cannot force anybody to do anything, but what we can do is to provide an environment in which people can get back together. That environment can happen only if the IRA clarifies the position with regard to paramilitary activity, and I repeat that that is why I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. The last thing that I wanted was a deferment of the elections in Northern Ireland, but the first thing that I want is to ensure the success of the process.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Last week the Secretary of State told the House, that a substantial set of proposals had been discussed by the two Governments with the political parties and broadly accepted by them, including a joint declaration. Tonight, the Secretary of State tells us that it is a further strength that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the Governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Good Friday agreement and, further, that that joint declaration is not open to renegotiation. On what basis does the Secretary of State presume on the support of the Ulster Unionist party for that joint declaration?

Paul Murphy: It was pretty clear during the seven months of negotiation that the leadership and negotiating teams of all the parties were based in Hillsborough and elsewhere to discuss the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not for me to comment on the internal mechanisms of individual political parties in Northern Ireland—that is their business. When we discussed the matters, the issues were agreed as an understanding. Some were not. For example, the issue of OTRs was separately identified outside the joint declaration, because the Ulster Unionist representatives in the negotiations did not agree with the nature of OTRs, in the same way—I hasten to add—that Sinn Fein did not agree with the paper about sanctions, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. There were disagreements, but there were other issues to do with the implementation of the agreement on which there was a huge shared understanding, such as issues of equality or those contained in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, which defined precisely what paramilitary activity was and is.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State has said that he wants openness and transparency. Does he agree that the treatment of the journalist from The Sunday Times, who made some things transparent, has been appalling? In the Secretary of State's view, were the conversations true and, if so, what will he do to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland may believe that their elected representatives are not being called such names?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on issues that are clearly matters of national security—[Hon. Members: "No, they are not."] Of course they are matters of national security.

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolute nonsense.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend could use more tempered language. We can disagree on the issues, but it is not gibberish to suggest that matters of national security are ones on which Ministers cannot comment. Similarly, it is not right for me to comment on an investigation that the police have already started with regard to the individual mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Hugo Swire: What we have heard this evening, from an uneasy Secretary of State, is the triumph of hope over experience. Why does he believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will comply with the demands for completion by the autumn when they have failed to do so by the timetable that has been outlined for months? In the spirit of openness and transparency, does he agree that some credibility might be restored to the entire process if the arms that Sinn Fein-IRA still hold were surrendered in a verifiable and transparent way, not in some behind the scenes deal that we have to take in good faith?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's last point is valid. People in Northern Ireland, from whichever party or community they come, have to have sufficient confidence that acts of decommissioning are genuine and verifiable. I am uneasy, I suppose, because I did not for one second want the elections to be postponed. However, I am at ease with myself with regard to the importance of the process. Many of us have been involved in the process for a long time, and some have been involved for much longer than I have. I know that they want the peace process in Northern Ireland to succeed. I accept that not all the parties concerned agree with our view, which is the sensible position that the best way to ensure that the process developed was to do what we did. I repeat that it is a postponement, not a cancellation.

Harry Barnes: Tonight may be the last time this week, but I support the Government. There is no democratic vacuum in Northern Ireland because of this decision. We have 11 Members opposite from Northern Ireland and another two next to me. Is not the key matter the peace process itself? Is it not essential either that the Provisional IRA gives up all activities in which it has been involved, or that Sinn Fein detaches itself clearly from the Provisional IRA? There is a precedent, in that, in the end, the democratic left detached itself from the Official IRA and entered fully and properly into democratic politics.

Paul Murphy: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The essence of the Good Friday agreement was that politics in Northern Ireland should be exclusively democratic and non-violent, and that the way forward for any political party—be it republican or any other—is to move down that road and not down the road of violence. That is why the two Governments have expressed with great robustness over the last couple of weeks the importance of ensuring that we have a clear answer from the IRA to the questions that we posed. We will continue to do that.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State not admit openly tonight his shame and embarrassment at the fact that he has to come here to explain why democracy was denied to the people of Northern Ireland on the very day that voters in Scotland and Wales were casting their votes? Does he accept that the root of the problem is that while a clear and overwhelming majority of nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland support the Belfast agreement—why would they not, as it delivers a nationalist and republican agenda?—the vast majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland do not support it? By running away from the election, the Secretary of State is simply putting off the day on which that fact will have to be faced up to and he will have to enter negotiations with those who truly represent the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; nor do I admit to being ashamed or embarrassed about what we had to do. Whether we disagree about the Good Friday agreement and the institutions and systems that it set up, the hon. Gentleman and I would nevertheless agree that devolution for Northern Ireland worked well. He was a Minister in the devolved Administration. I am sure that he would agree also that an Assembly that could not produce an Executive and remain suspended was of no use to anybody.

David Winnick: Should the republican leadership bother to read some of the exchanges that have taken place tonight, would it not come to the conclusion that by refusing to give the answers that are necessary to both sovereign Governments, the IRA is in effect playing right into the hands of the very people who are dedicated to destroying the Good Friday agreement? Perhaps it would be useful if the IRA and its political allies realised that fact.

Paul Murphy: I agree. I am not sure whether IRA members are watching the statement on the parliamentary channel this evening, but if they are, I repeat the message that I gave to the House an hour ago: we must have a clear and unambiguous statement with regard to the ending of all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. Only then can we proceed successfully with the peace process.

Iris Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the electoral mandate given to Assembly Members in 1998 has now expired and that parties therefore no longer have the democratic authority to negotiate? Would not it have been better for democracy for the elections to go ahead and to allow new mandates to be given to the parties?

Paul Murphy: I do not agree that the mandates for negotiation are worthless—far from it. The purpose of negotiations in Northern Ireland is to ensure that all parties, if they so wish, can take part in negotiations and discussions. The hon. Lady knows that my door is always open to members of all parties in Northern Ireland to discuss these issues. In the weeks ahead, I will ensure that all parties in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to make their points known.

Frank Field: Those of my constituents who listened to the Secretary of State's statement tonight will have heard him say that elections have been postponed in Northern Ireland because the IRA has failed to surrender its weapons. They may well ask me whether the simpler and fairer way forward would have been to exclude IRA-Sinn Fein from the electoral process. How would my right hon. Friend help me answer my constituents' question?

Paul Murphy: My right hon. Friend's constituents' questions would be answered by referring to the agreement made in 1998, which provided for exclusion from the Assembly, by the Assembly itself. That did not happen, but the agreement also said that politics in Northern Ireland should be exclusively peaceful. Exclusively peaceful politics can be achieved only if there is a commitment on the part of parties that are linked to the IRA, within the republican movement, to secure an end to paramilitary activity. That in turn led to the destruction of trust and confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland, and to the suspension of the Assembly. When we have restored trust, we can restore the institutions, and hold our elections.

Andrew Hunter: Further to that question, does the Secretary of State not see that there is something fundamentally and morally wrong in a political arrangement that suspends the workings of democratic, devolved government because a terrorist organisation refuses to give up violence? Should there not be an arrangement whereby nationalist and Unionist parties exclusively committed to democracy can resume restored devolved government?

Paul Murphy: That has to be based, of course, on there being willingness and agreement across the political board that that should occur. I think that, in many ways, there is something particularly immoral about 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland. Whatever the deficiencies of the Good Friday agreement since it was signed in 1998 and brought into effect, I believe that the world has changed for the better in Northern Ireland. It is much better than in the 30 years that preceded the agreement. I therefore believe that, although all of us deeply regret that we have had to postpone the elections, it would have been much worse to see the process fail.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State has said several times that the agreement cannot be changed. Will he accept that the agreement has been changed, in so far as the An Taoiseach is having a direct role in Northern Ireland's internal affairs, which is contrary to strand 1? Will he also accept that some people were conned into voting for the agreement by promises from the Prime Minister that have not been fulfilled? The Secretary of State will be aware that a famous Ulster actor is starring at the moment in a television series called "Murphy's Law". We in Ireland are never too happy about Murphy's law.

Paul Murphy: Well, there is no answer to that really, is there? The law that has to reign supreme in Northern Ireland is the one that allows us to have a peaceful Northern Ireland, with stable political institutions. In 1998, people believed that the agreement provided that. No one thought for one second that we would have complete peace and harmony after 1998—far from it; everybody knew that there was going to be a very bumpy road ahead of us. I suppose that we have hit the biggest bump of the lot during the past number of weeks. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, central to the whole question, is the importance of ensuring that the IRA—and indeed all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland—ceases its activities.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is nearly Wednesday. How many sitting days will there be between publication of the Bill to postpone the elections and its Second Reading? Is it intended that all the Bill's stages will be taken in one day, which would be unsatisfactory?
	In the great scheme of things, my next question is perhaps unimportant, but the Secretary of State has not spoken about the staff of Members of the Legislative Assembly and the high street offices. What will happen to them, particularly as regards redundancy notices?

Paul Murphy: The Bill will be published by Thursday, and, so long as the House authorities and the usual channels agree, there will be a day for all stages at the beginning of next week. I know that that may be regarded as unsatisfactory, but my hon. Friend will be aware that in order to fulfil the requirements of ensuring that one election has ended and the other started we have to act within a given time frame.
	On my hon. Friend's second question, let me assure him that we are carefully considering the issue of the political parties and their staff, and not least the staff of the Assembly itself, and are looking at how to ensure that the political process continues in Northern Ireland in the months between now and when the elections are held.

Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed and embarrassed at coming to the House to defend the cancellation of elections, for cancellation is what it is? Will he explain how he could tell us on Thursday that the elections would be postponed until the autumn but that he has twice in his statement tonight reverted simply to "hoping" that the elections will take place in the autumn? Is it not abundantly clear that he knows well that the conditions that he requires will not be met even in the autumn, and that his attempt was simply intended to save the skins of those Unionists who have supported the Belfast agreement against the wishes of the Unionist community?

Paul Murphy: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The trust and confidence necessary to re-establish the Assembly, and therefore an Executive, are important. The hon. Gentleman would agree with me—he has not mentioned it—that central to that is an end of paramilitary activity. I understand his frustration and huge disappointment, from his own and his party's point of view, with regard to the postponement of the election, but I am sure that he would agree that there is little point in electing Members to an Assembly that could remain permanently suspended. If he knocked on the doors of his constituency and in other parts of Northern Ireland, the people whom he would ask to vote would ask him the same question.

Mike Gapes: Five years ago the Belfast agreement was hailed throughout the world as a sign of hope and reconciliation. What message is sent around the world by the fact that, once again, Sinn Fein is not present in the House to take part in this discussion or from the fact that the rejectionists who were against the agreement still reject it? Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in the civil society of Northern Ireland will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to carry on the process of normalisation and hope for the future.

Paul Murphy: People are, of course, entitled to their own views about the Good Friday agreement. Parties represented in the Chamber—the Democratic Unionist party is one, but not the only one—made their points of view known at the time of the referendum. Since then, other views have been expressed about the agreement, and they will doubtless continue to be expressed. At the end of the day, it is all about ensuring that people have the opportunity to see a possibility of peace ahead of them. I think that people in Northern Ireland have tasted that to a large extent in the last five years, in comparison with the 30 years before that. We must continue to ensure that people continue to have that hope, from whatever part of the community they come.

David Burnside: May I ask the Secretary of State, at one minute before midnight, to pass on to the Prime Minister our best wishes for a very happy birthday, in that for a Prime Minister who decided to take half of his birthday celebrations in Dublin with the Irish Cabinet, I think it shows a tremendous contribution to the Irish peace process?
	Now for a serious point. If the Prime Minister and the Government do not come to the House soon, they will continue to turn off the people of Northern Ireland, who are just getting fed up and disillusioned and being pushed into fanatical apathy with the whole peace process, because it just stumbles and stumbles. Why do they not tell us the truth: that we cannot have devolution without Sinn Fein? Is that the Government's position, and can we take it that that is not going to change? Is it that we cannot have devolution in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein in the Executive? If that is the position, tell us, because some of us do not want it at that price.

Paul Murphy: But the issue in the agreement was that the Assembly would be inclusive, right across Northern Ireland. There is the opportunity, the possibility within the agreement itself, for parties to be excluded from that particular Executive. It would obviously be the best for all of us were we to get to a situation where there is an end to the paramilitary activity—all those things that I have described and which are in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. Surely it is best to see an end to that, not just because of the way in which it impacts upon an Assembly and upon devolution, but the way in which it impacts on the people of Northern Ireland in general. That is the issue; we want to see a peaceful Northern Ireland with all those terrible things stopped, and that is what we, as Governments, will be pressing for over the months ahead.

John Gummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in a difficulty here, because in the north of Ireland, which after all was established originally by threat of violence, there is a continuing determination to force one side against the other? Should he not this evening take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said about the possibility of an election forcing people to find a way of creating an Executive?
	I agree that the right hon. Gentleman may have some concern when he has heard the extremist language and the revanchist views that we have listened to from those who never wanted peace anyway, but he should recognise that an election forces people to try to find a way of having an Executive. I wonder whether he would accept it from moderate people, who take neither the extreme view of the Protestant Unionists nor the views of those who are supporters of the IRA, that perhaps an election is the means of making people face the fact that in the north of Ireland, if we are to have peace, people actually have to live together and choose an Executive that makes that possible.

Paul Murphy: I would not dismiss that scenario at all, and that is why it was a very difficult decision. The right hon. Gentleman refers to being in difficulty. He is right; of course we are in difficulty, and it was a very difficult decision to take because the points that he has made are valid. But we had to look across the whole board and as well as looking at the political process we had to look at the peace process; they are intertwined. If at the end of the day we do not get sufficient clarity—as we have not got from the IRA—we must take that very seriously in terms of the peace process in Northern Ireland but also in terms of the impact that it has on other parties, whether or not they would join in an Executive with the IRA.

Gregory Campbell: I take it from the comments that the Secretary of State made earlier in the evening that he would accept the credentials of those of us who are peaceful, democratic and law-abiding in our opposition to a process that we see as one of appeasement of terrorism. I take it that he will accept the credentials of those of us who have put forward that view consistently. If he does accept that, can he give an incentive to the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are equally peaceful, democratic and law-abiding but who see an increasing degree of cynicism among their community when they see evidence of an electoral opportunity to express their views being denied them? How does he present an incentive for those people to continue in their democracy, to continue in their peace, to continue to be law-abiding when he snatches the opportunity of an election from them?

Paul Murphy: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are committed to peace in Northern Ireland. I do not agree, however, on his analysis of the Assembly because cynicism would be even worse if people were elected to a body that remained suspended. I see no point in that because people would see no point in voting for it if they thought that it would be continually suspended—much better for people to vote for a body that they knew would be restored and could produce a Government for the people of Northern Ireland.

Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State agree that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, within 12 months of receiving a huge electoral mandate in this country, was hugely influential in securing the support, in particular, of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland for the Belfast agreement, but that that agreement has been unilaterally breached by Sinn Fein-IRA, by their failure to decommission weaponry, which they hold illegally, and that it is in the context of that unilateral breach that faith has been lost by so many of the Unionist community? Does he not understand that he has now put the Government in the position where they need Sinn Fein more than Sinn Fein needs them, because they are giving to Sinn Fein unilateral British disarmament in Northern Ireland as a reward for Sinn Fein's unilateral breach of the agreement?

Paul Murphy: That is not the case at all, because no normalisation would take place if the Chief Constable and the security forces in Northern Ireland agreed that there was still a threat. If there were still a threat, obviously, those events would not take place, and what the hon. Gentleman will read in the annexe to the joint declaration is based on the contingency of the IRA completing what we want it to complete—that is to say that it is ending paramilitary activity.
	As I say, this is ultimately about trust and confidence, but it is also about indicating to the IRA that we were not happy and that we were not content with the statements that it made. It did move; there was progress, but, frankly, it was not enough and, until there is enough, I fear that—without that trust, which is necessary to bring back what is important in Northern Ireland in every respect—we will still have to wait.

Julian Lewis: One can genuinely sympathise with the Secretary of State in seeking to use the prospect of a future Assembly to try to bring Sinn Fein-IRA on to the democratic path permanently, but would not there be an equal or even greater incentive to do that if the elections had been allowed to go ahead, so that Sinn Fein-IRA would have felt that they were the ones who were excluding themselves, while others got on with holding the positions to which they had been democratically elected? Is not really the position that the Secretary of State is taking rather analogous—I do not mean to trivialise it—to that of a referee in the FA cup final who, when a player on one side commits a foul, instead of penalising that player, sends both teams off the field?

Paul Murphy: Except that the match has still to be played in the new season. I hope that, as I say, come the autumn, those elections are held and that, at the same time, we have the trust that is necessary to restore the institutions, but the hon. Gentleman is right in this respect: the decision was extremely difficult and the arguments were very finely balanced. It was not an easy decision at all. We think that we have taken the right one because, as I say, what is the point of electing people to an Assembly that remains suspended?

ASTHMA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

David Chaytor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for my being able to introduce this short debate on asthma. It is an extremely timely debate, as Tuesday 6 May is world asthma day. In parliamentary terms, it remains Tuesday 6 May, although in real time, of course, that was yesterday.
	I want to pay tribute to the work of the National Asthma Campaign, the independent charity dedicated to conquering asthma, which launched its new asthma charter today. If implemented, the charter could literally be a breath of fresh air, as it describes the quality of care that the 5.1 million people with asthma in the United Kingdom should receive from the national health service. The charter aims to ensure that everyone who works in the national health service and in government gives asthma the priority it deserves.
	In view of the debate in the House tomorrow—perhaps I should say "today"—on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, one of the issues that deeply concerns many people is the balance between the role of primary care and the role of secondary care. Asthma—not the most glamorous end of health care policy—provides a timely example of how, if we invest more in primary care, we can ultimately save more in the costs of secondary care.
	Let us be under no illusion that asthma can and does kill: in the United Kingdom, 1,500 people die from asthma each year. That equates to four people a day and one person every six hours. We all know someone who has asthma. Currently, 5.1 million people in the United Kingdom are receiving treatment for asthma. For many people, asthma means daily anxiety about how to avoid an attack. For some, it is a matter of life and death. Currently, there is no cure for asthma. It is a real problem, but, fortunately, we can do more about it. With better care and treatment from the point of diagnosis, an estimated 90 per cent. of deaths could be prevented and 75 per cent. of hospital admissions could be avoided.
	Asthma is a condition that affects the airways—the small tubes that carry air in and out of the lungs. People with asthma have airways that are almost always red and sensitive because they are inflamed. Their airways can react badly when they have a cold or other viral infection or when they come into contact with an asthma trigger—something that sets off their symptoms. When that happens, the muscles around the walls of the airways tighten and become narrower. The lining of the airways swells and often produces a sticky mucus. As the airways narrow, the air must squeeze in and out, and that is what causes the person with asthma to find it difficult to breathe. Asthma symptoms can include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath or a tight feeling in the chest. One of my constituents recently described an asthma attack to me, saying that it felt like an elephant sitting on their chest. It is a frightening experience, and it is important to emphasise that asthma is far more serious than an occasional shortage of breath.
	One in 13 of my constituents in Bury, North suffers from asthma. A vast number of them have been in touch with me with regard to a variety of issues ranging from the impact of smoking in the workplace and other public places, asthma policies for schools, the impact of air pollution and the effect of prescription charges for asthma sufferers.
	Of course, asthma is more than a health issue. For most sufferers, it is a quality of life issue, and in the absence of a cure I want people with asthma to be able to live a symptom-free life.

David Drew: I declare an interest as an asthma sufferer. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best changes in terms of preventive care is the way in which people's use of the drugs can be managed through advice in doctors' surgeries, often involving practice nurses? Does he also agree that as new generations of those drugs are developed, there is a need to manage carefully people's access to them? Too often, people do not know how to use the drugs in the appropriate way, and more work must be done in that area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a way to take the matter forward?

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend speaks with personal experience as an asthma sufferer and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to raise the profile of the condition. What he says about the need to increase people's awareness of the disease and to increase their ability to manage the drugs is right and will be a theme of my remarks.
	The impact of new technology in alleviating the suffering of asthma sufferers also needs to be taken more seriously. I was recently made aware of the use of mobile phone technology by one of the major mobile phone networks to enable more direct communication at the crisis point between asthma sufferers and their GPs. Again, as time goes by, with the correct level of investment and with greater understanding and awareness of the problem by both GPs and asthma sufferers, that will lead to a severe reduction in the number of deaths from asthma.
	The data and statistics presented by the National Asthma Campaign demonstrate how enormous a burden asthma can be. I was shocked to discover that almost 4 million people with asthma needlessly experience symptoms. As a nation, we do not meet our international targets for asthma care. That is through no fault of the patients or the health care professionals; it is entirely because the nation and the Government do not give asthma sufficient priority. If we do not make it a priority, how can asthma sufferers and their carers be expected to meet those critical standards? The sheer number of emergency admissions—74,000 per annum—is surely evidence enough that people with asthma are not getting the support or care from the health service that would prevent so many of those admissions.
	People with asthma often have low expectations of how well they can be and do not realise that their health and quality of life could be better. Almost half of all people with asthma in the United Kingdom experience significant symptoms that disrupt their daily lives, such as difficulty in walking upstairs and interrupted sleep. The majority of people with asthma do not need to tolerate asthma symptoms. They can and should be able to go through life virtually symptom free.
	The sheer scale of asthma as a condition makes it an expensive business at all levels of the health service and to society as a whole. Approximately 18,000 first or new episodes are presented to GPs each week in the United Kingdom. Respiratory disease is now the most common illness responsible for emergency admissions to hospital. Asthma costs the NHS an average of £850 million a year. At the local level, the annual cost of managing asthma for an average size primary care trust is approximately £4 million. In total, asthma costs the UK economy and the NHS more than £2 billion a year. As a consequence of symptoms and inadequate care, more than 18 million working days are lost as a result of asthma each year. That could be changed by better health care.
	People with asthma are frequently forced to visit hospital because their asthma is poorly managed. Much of the suffering and unnecessary journeys to hospitals that are sometimes many miles away could be avoided because most patients would prefer to visit their local GP. Today's modern medicines mean that people with asthma should lead symptom-free lives, but the asthma care system leaves a great deal to be desired. With good support from health care professionals, backed up by written information, the National Asthma Campaign believes that people can take the lead in managing their asthma and relieve the impact of the condition on their lives—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). That in turn will help to cut the costs of emergency admissions and reduce the number of unnecessary deaths.
	Our current system leaves a lot to be desired in terms both of cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness. However, it is clear that changes should be made, many of which may have little cost implication. People with asthma are not asking the earth; they want only common-sense things such as a quick and accurate diagnosis, to meet their respiratory consultant and asthma nurses on a regular basis, to be shown how to use the inhaler device correctly, to agree a personal action plan with a doctor or nurse and to expect any person who works in the NHS to be aware of the serious risks that the person with asthma faces if their condition deteriorates. However, it is also clear that prescription charges are a major problem for most people with asthma in the UK. In a recent survey, 71 per cent. of people with asthma said that free prescriptions would be the most useful thing in improving their quality of life. Some people with asthma are quite unable to pay for all their prescribed medication, and are forced to choose which treatment to go without.
	Limiting asthma treatment because of financial difficulty puts the health of people with asthma at risk. Under-treatment can lead to irreversible lung damage, lower quality of life, an increase in the frequency of asthma attacks and the ultimate burden on the NHS, which is why the National Asthma Campaign wants asthma to be added to the list of clinical exemptions from prescription charges. As with many current clinical exemptions, asthma is a long-term medical condition with variable expression that requires consistent treatment to avoid worsening symptoms. There is no clinical reason why asthma should not be added to the list. Free prescriptions for people with asthma will save NHS resources by reducing emergency hospital admissions and will improve their quality of life. In essence, better use of prescription medicines leads to less emergency health care use, less secondary care use, fewer asthma attacks and fewer days lost from work.
	I would welcome a wider role for pharmacists in asthma care, as they often have immense knowledge of asthma and have a little more time to deal with patients than GPs. They could, for example, check a patient's inhaler technique—something that is vital, yet can make such a huge difference. Incorrect inhaler use means that the medication does not work effectively to control inflammation in the airways or open them when symptoms occur. I would like the inhaler check to be a standard procedure when people pick up an asthma prescription. People with asthma often underestimate the seriousness of the disease. Many put up with poor, substandard care because they have low expectations of the health care that they receive and the quality of life that they can enjoy. I urge people with asthma to take the asthma charter to their doctor to ensure that they get the best treatment and advice.
	Only 3 per cent. of people with asthma in the United Kingdom have a personal asthma plan. Those plans are the single most effective non-drug-based way of controlling the condition, and can make the difference between a good quality of life and repeated admissions to hospital and all the associated health care costs. Making self-management plans a reality depends on the training of staff in asthma, which is neglected at present. There is an immense amount of good will among our nurses and health care professionals, but we need to harness that good will and provide structured plans so that training can come into force. Personal asthma plans lead to fewer asthma symptoms, improved lung function, fewer acute attacks because of the prompt response to a worsening condition, less need for reliever treatment, less need for steroids, less inappropriate use of antibiotics, improved compliance and a better quality of life.
	Many people with asthma do not have the chance to speak to a trained asthma nurse or respiratory specialist before they are discharged from accident and emergency. That is a key factor in avoiding repeat admission. A thorough assessment of their asthma should be made, including, perhaps most importantly, the reason for the admission, so that we can find out what precipitated the attack and how the situation could be better managed in future. Perhaps we should look at Australia as a benchmark of good practice elsewhere. It has made asthma a national priority and has more than halved asthma deaths in 11 years. It managed to lower asthma deaths by implementing better asthma care across the board.
	As a nation, we lag behind not only Australia but other European countries. In 1996, for example, mortality rates from asthma in the UK were 105 per 100,000 people, compared with 44 in France and 43 in Germany, which is why the National Asthma Campaign has long called for confidential inquiries into all asthma deaths. I want to reiterate that call so that we can know the reasons behind the 1,500 asthma deaths every year. If, as many people suspect, the reasons boil down to inadequate routine care, delay in obtaining help during the final, fatal attack or poor adherence to medication, the Government and the NHS need to act quickly and cut the number of deaths with the easy and common-sense points on implementation to which I referred earlier.
	With one in every five households being affected by asthma, it is clear that we as parliamentarians need to do more to represent the views and needs of asthma sufferers. Regrettably, there remain many people, including politicians, doctors and nurses, who are not convinced that asthma is a problem. They do not seem to realise that their actions can make the difference between someone's asthma being under control and that person's being a regular visitor at the local accident and emergency department. I believe that the House can make a difference and I call on the Government to make asthma a national priority.
	We need more asthma clinics run by asthma-trained health professionals offering a patient-centred approach to increase patient expectations, coupled with health care trusts ensuring that asthma is a local priority. In addition, health care professionals should adhere to the latest British guidelines on asthma management. I pay tribute to the work of the National Asthma Campaign, the voice of people with asthma, for its ceaseless campaigning to improve patient care and public awareness of asthma. We in Parliament need to take heed of that, as we know that good management can lead most people with asthma to have full and active lives, and a better quality of life overall. Admittedly, the onus does not lie solely with Westminster, but it is a good opportunity for parliamentarians of all parties to use their power and influence to unite to make asthma a national priority.
	It is evident that much more work remains to be done within the NHS on behalf of the majority of people with asthma who should be experiencing a life free from symptoms. That is a problem connected with the health service, not with the health care professionals working within it. The Government should make asthma a national priority so that we can have a seamless co-ordinated system of care across primary care, accident and emergency, ambulance and in-patient and out-patient services. That in turn would cut the burden and costs incurred by the NHS and the pressure on the UK economy.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating the debate. It is opportune that we are discussing asthma on world asthma day. I, too, have seen the National Asthma Campaign's 10-point charter, "A Breath of Fresh Air", which was published today. I share my hon. Friend's high regard for that campaign, with its proud record of supporting research and raising the issue of asthma, as has my hon. Friend today.
	We are making progress in improving treatment and care for people with asthma, and I welcome the opportunity to outline what has been done and what more we can do. I start by recognising, as my hon. Friend explained, how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. As he rightly said, asthma is the commonest chronic disease in the UK and it affects all age groups. Its cause, despite much research worldwide, is still not known.
	Before I deal with some of the detailed points and outline some of the action that has been and will be taken, I want to give some good news. Asthma treatments have improved and the number of deaths has fallen. Since 1988, the number of deaths in England and Wales has fallen by about 25 per cent. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about people being admitted to hospital when earlier preventive treatment could have avoided that, but admissions to hospital have fallen significantly since 1997, when they stood at 71,434 a year, to 60,134 in 2001–02. Like him, I believe that the advances in treatment are due to the commitment, dedication and expertise of the NHS and researchers.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, asthma is mainly managed in primary care. The chronic disease management programme, which was introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the GP contract. Participating GPs, who currently account for about 93 per cent. of the total number, receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with asthma.
	The asthma charter published today by the National Asthma Campaign sets out 10 rights that a person with asthma might expect from the NHS. GPs who participate in the chronic disease management programme are providing services that help to meet many of the charter rights. For example, the charter calls for access to nurses and doctors with specific asthma training. To participate in the chronic disease management programme, health professionals must be adequately trained in the management of asthma. Other requirements include ensuring that all newly diagnosed patients with asthma receive appropriate education and advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was right to say that that is an important element whereby we can improve management of asthma. GPs are expected to ensure that all patients receive continuing education, including supervision of inhaler technique if necessary, and to prepare an individual management plan with the patient and ensure regular reviews.
	All those requirements put participating practices in a strong position to meet many of the important charter rights. Of course, we need to build on that. Hon. Members will be aware that a new general medical services contract was launched in February. If that new GP contract is accepted by the profession, it will lead to unprecedented investment in general practice to deliver a wide range of high-quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients, including those with asthma.
	The proposed contract includes a specific quality indicator for treatment and care of people with asthma that builds on the chronic disease management programme and will expect GP practices to keep records and effectively manage and review patients with asthma in order to qualify for additional quality payments. In particular, it highlights and promotes the offering and development of smoking cessation advice for patients with asthma who smoke. It promotes an increase in the number of patients who have asthma reviews and the number who have flu immunisation. If the profession accepts the new contract, the quality indicators will help to drive up standards of treatment and care in that important area of primary care.
	It is also crucial that the work force are in place and that we have the numbers and quality of staff needed to provide the standards of care that my hon. Friend outlined. Since September 1997, there has been a growth in the number of consultants across all specialties and a 63 per cent. increase in the number specialising in respiratory medicine. Clearly, it is important that we further increase the numbers of trained specialists available to take posts in that specialty. In addition, the Department of Health and the Royal College of General Practitioners have produced a framework for implementing a scheme for general practitioners with special interests and clinical guidelines for them.
	My hon. Friend pointed out the importance of GPs and I very strongly share his view. The new guidance for the appointment of GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine was published last month. Guidelines were written in conjunction with a range of experts, including the National Asthma Campaign and the British Thoracic Society. GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine will be able to develop in their own services and along with their colleagues in primary care some of the improvements in treatment that we all want. They will be able to act as a clinical lead in the primary care organisation and carry out consultations with patients who may have been referred by other practitioners for advice on clinical management of problems such as asthma. That might well help to avoid the need to wait for referral to a hospital specialist or to be admitted to hospital at all.
	GPs with a special interest might also be expected to help develop the competence and confidence of their professional colleagues in providing an optimal service for people with asthma, acting as a training resource, a development and a clinical leader in the local primary care area, and helping to improve treatment for those with asthma. That scheme is an example of how we are putting into place plans to improve care for people with asthma.
	We recognise that not only GPs but specialist nurses have a very important role to play in the management of respiratory conditions such as asthma. Last month, the Department published "Liberating the Talents", a guide to inform the development of nurses with a special interest in primary care. Like GPs with a special interest, they could work across a number of practices, providing secondary care services to patients across the community. Alternatively, they might work out of a hospital trust on an outreach basis, perhaps supporting patients with asthma at home or in a local health centre.
	We need to ensure that we have more and better-quality professionals, but there is also an important role for developing the approach of patients with asthma to managing their own condition. People with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme, which, from 2004 to 2007, will provide mainstream NHS training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The programme is piloting courses in selected primary care trust sites. We expect that it will develop to give individuals the skills to manage some of the generic issues around chronic conditions, including the need to deal with acute attacks, to make effective use of medicines and treatments, and to cope with other people's responses. We then intend to introduce specific training modules, including one for asthma, into those pilot programme processes. Experience to date suggests that expert patients can reduce the severity of their symptoms and increase their quality of life—an area where there may be some important benefits.
	Asthma has a major impact on children. Alongside the work that we have done with the Department for Education and Skills on spelling out what we expect from schools in terms of helping children to manage their asthma and to play a full part in the life of the school, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently met representatives of the National Asthma Campaign to discuss what more we need to do to ensure that children have that opportunity. We are developing the national service framework for children to set standards for the care of children and young people so that all children and young people have access to good-quality care. We are developing, with input from the National Asthma Campaign, an exemplar that uses—because of its prevalence—asthma to demonstrate how services from primary care to acute care, including ambulance trusts, must work together to ensure that the services that we provide for children with asthma are the most appropriate.
	That applies not only to children, but to adults. We recently welcomed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on inhalers. Last year, it advised on inhalers for children aged between five and 15 and, in September 2000, for children under the age of five. We strongly support that guidance, which emphasises the importance of ensuring that the device suits the individual needs of the child. That fits with my hon. Friend's comments on making sure that we prepare patients and educate them properly about the use of drugs, and more broadly.
	On smoking, the Government's ban on tobacco advertising, work to educate parents about the effects of smoking, and support for the licensed hospitality industry's charter to improve facilities for non-smokers in pubs, bars and restaurants will be important contributions to helping to tackle asthma.
	I pay tribute to the role of the National Asthma Campaign as one of the largest funders of asthma research.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.